[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Sukhdev Singh And Ors on 12 March, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
XOBJC-71- 2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
XOBJC-71- 2022
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant
Vs.
SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS. ......Respondents
Reserved on: 12.02.2026
Pronounced on : 12.03.2026
Uploaded on: 18.03.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO
Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the claimant/respondent No.1.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
FAO-3690-2013
1. The present appeal has been preferred against award dated
08.04.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri
Muktsar Sahib (for short, 'the Tribunal') in the claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the ground of quantum of
compensation to be on higher side, and that appellant/insurance company
was wrongly held liable to pay the compensation to claimant/respondent
No.1.
1 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
XOBJC-71-2022
2. The present cross-objection has been preferred by cross-
objector/claimant (respondent No. 1 herein) against the award dated
08.04.2013 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Tribunal, for enhancement of
compensation, granted to the cross-objector/claimant to the tune of
Rs.8,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum on account of injuries
suffered by respondent No.1/cross objector.
3. Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross-
objections filed by the claimant/cross-objector are arising out of the same
award dated 08.04.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, FAO-
3690-2013 and XOBJC-71-2022 are decided vide this common judgment.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.2011, at about 7AM, the
claimant alongwith his cousin Resham Singh were proceeding on motor
cycle bearing registration No. PB-47D-6250 from Nanaksar to Sri Muktsar
Sahib on the left side of the road. The claimant was sitting on the pillion of
the motor cycle which was being driven by Resham Singh. When they
reached near Petrol pump at bus stand of village Sarainaga, the offending
vehicle came from the opposite side and it was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner and at a high speed by respondent No.l without blowing
any horn. The offending vehicle without giving any indication struck its one
side with the motor cycle while overtaking a truck. As a result of the
accident, the claimant alongwith Resham Singh fell down from the motor
2 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
cycle on the road. The claimant had suffered injuries on his head, left arm,
chest and other body parts. Motor cycle was also damaged and Resham
Singh also suffered minor injuries. The claimant was taken to Civil Hospital
Muktsar by some person, who was present at the spot. Claimant was referred
to Bharat Hospital Bathinda and thereafter due to serious injuries, the
claimant was further referred to DMC College and Hospital, Ludhiana and
since then he is getting treatment from the said hospital. The police had not
reduced into writing the statement of the claimant and rather entered the
DDR on twisted facts by changing the whole story. The accident took place
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent
No.l. It has been alleged that the claimant is aged about 18'/2 years and was
a student of 10+2. He was also extending helping hand in the agricultural
pursuit to his father and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. It has been alleged
that respondent No.2 is owner of the offending vehicle and the same has
been insured with respondent no.3.
5. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and
admitted the factum of compensation.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed by the learned Tribunal :-
"1. Whether the claimant has sustained injuries in a
motor vehicular accident, which took place on
09.06.2011, at about 7AM, in the area of Sarainaga,
District Sri Muktsar Sahib due to rash and negligent
driving of the vehicle bearing registration NO.PB-
30D-9099 by respondent No.l? OP-Claimant
3 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
2. Whether claimant is entitled to compensation? If
so, to what extent and claimant from whom? OP-
claimant
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
4. Whether the claimant has no locus standi to file
the present petition? OPR
5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and
mis-joinder of parties? OPR"
7. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their
respective pleadings.
8. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence
on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants.
However, the liability to pay compensation was fastened upon the appellant-
Insurance Company. Hence, the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance
Company submits that the present appeal has been preferred assailing the
findings recorded by the learned Tribunal both on the issue of negligence as
well as on the quantum of compensation awarded on account of disability.
10. He further contends that no FIR was registered with respect to
the alleged occurrence and that only a DDR entry was recorded. Referring to
the contents of the said DDR, learned counsel submits that it was recorded
therein that some stray cattle had suddenly come on the road and while
attempting to save them, the motorcycle struck against the offending vehicle.
4 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
On the strength of the said entry, he argues that the accident cannot be
attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
11. On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel prays that the
present appeal be allowed and the impugned award be set aside or suitably
modified.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contends
that liability has been rightly fixed by learned Tribunal on appellant-
Insurance Company. He further contends that compensation granted is on
the lower side and he filed cross-objections bearing No.XOBJC-71-2022
seeking enhancement of the compensation. He therefore, prays that the
present appeal be dismissed and the compensation be enhanced.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case with their able assistance.
14. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the
award dated 08.04.2013 :-
"ISSUE NO.I
9. The claimant has put forth a case to the effect that on
09.06.2011, he was travelling on a motorcycle which was
being driven by Resham Singh PW2. When he reached in
the area of Sarainaga, the offending vehicle being driven
by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner came
from the opposite side and struck with the motor cycle, as
a result thereof both the occupants of the motor cycle
sustained injuries. The claimant has stepped into the
witness box as PW1 and has testified with regard to the
5 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
mode and manner in which the accident took place. He
has also examined Resham Singh PW2, who was driving
the motor cycle and is an eye-witness to the accident.
Both of them have attributed act of rashness and
negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in driving the
offending vehicle.
10. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the
respondent that the first version of the case has been
unfolded in the DDR, copy whereof is Ex.P131. The DDR
entry has been lodged at the instance of Resham Singh
PW2 and it is emerging that some stray cattle had come
on the road and while saving them, the motor cycle had
struck with the offending vehicle. No rashness and
negligence has been attributed to respondent No.l in the
DDR and as such, it cannot be said that the accident took
place due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle by respondent No. 1.
11. It is no doubt true that in the instant case no FIR has
been lodged and a DDR was recorded which indicates
that the accident took place due to natural reason as
some stray cattle had come on the road, but it cannot be
termed to be a circumstance to disbelieve the version of
the claimant. The lodging of report or reporting the
matter to the police are at the most corroborative piece
of evidence and in the event no action has been initiated
by the police, it cannot be termed to be a circumstance to
disbelieve the version of the claimant. In this regard,
reference can be made to a decision reported as 2012(2)
Recent Civil Reports page 247-Kanhaivalal Nanuram
6 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
Praiapat Vs. Om Parkash Ratanlal Bakliwal and others
(MP), wherein it has been laid down as following:-
"The contrary finding of the Tribunal is
unsustainable since the tribunal has adopted a
technical approach in the matter and has not
properly appreciated the evidence on record. The
tribunal has noted the oral and documentary
evidence, but has committed an error in
appreciating this evidence and has given undue
weight age to the fact that the accident was not
reported to the police. Thus, the said finding of the
Tribunal is set aside."
12. Furthermore, the mere fact that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not involved in a criminal case
cannot be construed as a ground to conclude that he was
not at fault. The tribunal has to evaluate the evidence
adduced before it individually and in this regard
reference can be made to the decision reported as
2001(3) Civil Court Cases Vs page 286 (P&H)-
Tarwinder Singh Vs. Ishwar Chand Mittal. Besides, in
the decision reported as 2011(2) Recent Civil Reports
153- Parmeshwari Vs Amir Chand and others, it has
been held that the strict principles in a criminal case are
not attracted in a case for compensation under the Motor
Vehicle Act."
15. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue
of rashness and negligence do not warrant any interference by this
Court. A careful perusal of the impugned award reveals that the
Tribunal has duly appreciated both oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record and has arrived at a well-reasoned
7 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
conclusion.
14. The claimant, while appearing in the witness box as
PW-1, has given a clear, cogent and consistent account of the manner
in which the accident occurred. In his testimony, he has specifically
deposed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. The said version
stands duly corroborated by Resham Singh, who appeared as PW-2
and was himself driving the motorcycle at the relevant time. Being an
eye-witness to the occurrence, his testimony lends substantial support
to the case set up by the claimant. Nothing material has been elicited in
their cross-examination so as to discredit their testimonies.
16. The principal contention raised on behalf of the appellant-
Insurance Company is founded upon the DDR entry, wherein it has
been mentioned that some stray cattle had come on the road and while
attempting to save them, the motorcycle struck against the offending
vehicle. However, the mere absence of a specific attribution of
rashness or negligence to the driver of the offending vehicle in the
DDR cannot, by itself, be treated as a circumstance sufficient to
discard the otherwise reliable ocular testimony of the claimant and the
eye-witness.
16. It is well settled that the lodging of FIR or DDR and the
contents thereof constitute only a corroborative piece of evidence. The
failure to register FIR or the absence of detailed allegations in
8 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
the DDR cannot, in itself, defeat a claim for compensation under the
Motor Vehicles Act. Proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal are summary in nature and the strict rules of evidence
applicable to criminal trials are not required to be applied with the
same rigour.
17. It is also noteworthy that the driver and owner of the
offending vehicle have not disputed the occurrence of the accident. In
their written statement, they attempted to shift the blame upon Resham
Singh, the driver of the motorcycle. However, despite raising such a
plea, neither the driver nor the owner stepped into the witness box to
substantiate their defence or to rebut the testimonies of PW-1 and
PW-2. Their failure to enter the witness box and to support their
pleadings by leading cogent evidence assumes significance and an
adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them.
18. In the face of the consistent and unshaken testimonies of
the claimant and the eye-witness, and in the absence of any rebuttal
evidence on behalf of the respondents, the learned Tribunal was fully
justified in accepting the version put forth by the claimant.
19. Consequently, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that
the claimant sustained injuries in the motor vehicular accident dated
09.06.2011 at about 7:00 A.M. in the area of Sarainaga, District Sri
Muktsar Sahib, due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by respondent No.1, is based on a proper appreciation of the
9 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
evidence on record and settled principles governing adjudication of
motor accident claims.
20. This Court, therefore, finds no perversity, illegality or
infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue
of negligence. The same are accordingly affirmed.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
21. Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of
compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 343, has held as under:-
General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for
short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means
that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and
adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the
accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the
loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do
so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or
tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and
exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though
some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and
its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which
he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to
be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability
to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed
but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used
to earn or could have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T.
10 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D.
Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and
Baker v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467).
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal
injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous
expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would
have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages
(General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence
of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded
only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases
of injury, where there is specific medical evidence
corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation
will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi)
relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or
loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above :
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries),
do not result in loss of earning capacity.
11 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the
whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the
percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the
percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the
percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases,
where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that
percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as
percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who
examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent
of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is
something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with
reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons,
depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job,
age, education and other factors.
20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained
below with reference to the following
Illustration 'A' : The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years
and earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident. As
per Doctor's evidence, the permanent disability of the limb as a
consequence of the injury was 60% and the consequential
permanent disability to the person was quantified at 30%. The
loss of earning capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as
15% on the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued
in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of
compensation will be as follows:
a) Annual income before the accident : Rs. 36,000/-.
b) Loss of future earning per annum
12 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
(15% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 5400/-.
c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17
d) Loss of future earnings : (5400 x 17) : Rs. 91,800/-
Illustration 'B': The injured was a driver aged 30 years,
earning Rs. 3000/- per month. His hand is amputated and his
permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was terminated
from his job as he could no longer drive. His chances of getting
any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the
salary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore
assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%.
Calculation of compensation will be as follows :
a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs. 36,000/- .
b) Loss of future earning per annum
(75% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 27000/-.
c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17
d) Loss of future earnings : (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/-
Illustration 'C' : The injured was 25 years and a final year
Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma
for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was
affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As
the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and
as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life,
the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as 70%.
The calculation of compensation will be as follows :
a) Minimum annual income he would have got if had been
employed as an Engineer : Rs. 60,000/-
b) Loss of future earning per annum (70% of the expected
annual income) : Rs. 42000/-
c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) : 18
d) Loss of future earnings : (42000 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/-
13 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
[Note : The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are
hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based
on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra
(supra)].
22. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified
the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
on the following aspects:-
(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine
multiplicand;
(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;
(C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;
(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation;
(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for
different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed
salary.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It
seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional
heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and
Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the
said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit
should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think
that it would be condign that the amount that we have
quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in
every three years and the enhancement should be at the
rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to
hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect
of those heads."
23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs.
State Express Tran. Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has held as under:-
" 7. There are three aspects which are required to be examined
by us:
(a) the application of multiplier of '17' instead of '18';
14 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the
basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the
judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). In para 46 of the said
judgment, the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed the
multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the
case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the age
group of 15-25 years, the multiplier has to be '18' along with
factoring in the extent of disability.
The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned
counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus, we
come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be applied in the
case of the appellant has to be '18' and not '17'.
(b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with permanent
disability of 31.1%
In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has claimed
compensation on what is stated to be the settled principle set
out in Jagdish v. Mohan & Others, 2018 ACJ 1011 (SC) and
Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande & Another, 2017 ACJ 979
(SC). We extract below the principle set out in the Jagdish
(supra) in para 8:
"8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled
principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers
a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an
accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The
award of compensation must cover among others, the
following aspects:
i. Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;
ii. Loss of income including future income;
15 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
iii. The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together
with its amenities;
iv. Medical expenses including those that the victim may be
required to undertake in future; and
v. Loss of expectation of life."
[emphasis
supplied]
The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized in an
earlier judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case (supra)
opining that the multiplier method was logically sound and
legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a
result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident.
In the factual contours of the present case, if we examine
the disability certificate, it shows the admission/hospitalization
on 8 occasions for various number of days over 1½ years from
August 2011 to January 2013. The nature of injuries had been
set out as under:
"Nature of injury:
i. compound fracture shaft left humerus
ii. fracture both bones left forearm
iii. compound fracture both bones right forearm
iv. fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand
v. subtrochanteric fracture right femur
vi. fracture shaft femur
vii. fracture both bones left leg
We have also perused the photographs annexed to
the petition showing the current physical state of the
appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the
respondent State Corporation that the same was not on
record in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the
position even after treatment and the nature of injuries
16 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in
para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while
applying the multiplier method, future prospects on
advancement in life and career are also to be taken into
consideration.
We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there
is merit in the contention of the appellant and the
aforesaid principles with regard to future prospects must
also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the
permanent disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the
same on the basis of the judgment in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. case (supra), more specifically para 61(iii),
considering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the
actual salary in the present case.
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate
claimed as 12%
In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has
watered down the interest rate during the course of
hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements
including in the Jagdish's case (supra). On this aspect,
once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the
learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was
confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by
this Court.
CONCLUSION
8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled
principles, the calculation of compensation by the
appellant, as set out in para 5 of the synopsis, would
have to be adopted as follows:
17 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
Heads Awarded
Loss of earning power Rs. 9,81,978/-
(Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100
Future prospects (50 per cent Rs.4,90,989/-
addition)
Medical expenses including Rs.18,46,864/-
transport charges,
nourishment, etc.
Loss of matrimonial prospects Rs.5,00,000/-
Loss of comfort, loss of Rs.1,50,000/-
amenities and mental agony
Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
Total Rs.41,69,831/-
The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the compensation of
Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of
payment.
XOBJC-71-2022
24. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned
Tribunal has erred in not calculating the loss of income, therefore, this Court
deems it fit to calculate the same as per the settled law on compensation.
25. As per the award, the claimant/cross-objector was 18 years old
at the time of the accident and was 12th standard student. The learned
Tribunal erred in stating that he is not entitled to any loss of income as he
was just a student at the time of accident. This Court deems it fit to assess
the notional income of the claimant/cross-objector.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi and
anr, 2014(11) SCC 178 has held that in a motor vehicular accident, the
18 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
victim was a student and bones of her both legs fractured. Hon'ble the
Supreme Court assessed her notional monthly income at Rs.10,000/- and
awarded her 50% future prospects. She was awarded Rs.3 lacs under the
head Loss of enjoyment of life and marriage prospects. She was awarded Rs.
2 lacs under the head pain and suffering and Rs. 2 lacs under the head loss of
amenity and attendant charges. The relevant extract of the judgment is
reproduced as under:-
"17. The fact that the appellant was a brilliant student at the time of
the accident should also be taken into consideration while awarding
compensation to her. Therefore, taking Rs.6,000/- as monthly notional
income by the Tribunal for the purpose of awarding compensation under
this head is too meager an amount. The learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.2 contended that the appellant can still finish her
education and find employment and therefore, there is no necessity to
enhance the amount of compensation under the head of 'loss of income'
and 'future prospects'. It is pertinent to reiterate here that the claimant/
appellant has undergone and undergoing substantial pain and suffering
due to the accident which has rendered both her legs dysfunctional. This
has reduced the scope of her future prospects including her marriage
substantially. Moreover, a tortfeasor is not entitled to dictate the terms of
the claimants-appellants career as has been held by the Karnataka High
Court in the case of K. Narsimha Murthy v. The Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd and Anr. ILR 2004 KARNATAKA 2471, the
19 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
relevant paragraph of which reads as under:
"41. .... Further, it needs to be emphasized that it is not the right
of the tortfeasor or a person who has taken over the liability of the
tortfeasor in terms of and under the Act to dictate that the injured
person should do some other work, manual or otherwise, it does
not matter, may be with pain and discomfort, in order to minimize
his or its liability. Such insistence is untenable in law and if such
is the case, it would violate basic human rights of the injured
person. In this case, the appellant is reduced to such a state that
he is unable to do any work, manual or otherwise, without
subjecting himself to pain and suffering, agony and discomfort. In
an accident, if a man is disabled for a work which he was doing
before the accident, that he has no talents, skill, experience or
training for anything else and he is unable to find any work,
manual or clerical, such a man for all practical purposes has lost
all earning capacity he possessed before and he is required to be
compensated on the basis of total loss. In reaching this conclusion
we may derive support from the judgments in Daniels v. Sir Robert
Mc Alpine and Sons Limited and Blair v. FJC Lilley (Marine)
Limited. Secondly, the physical incapacity to earn income
sustained by the appellant is not temporary, but permanent and
complete as per Exhibit P. 43. Thirdly, it cannot be said that since
the appellant has sustained only 54% permanent physical
20 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
disability in respect of the whole body as per P.W. 3, the Court
should take into account functional disability also at 54% only
while assessing the loss of earning capacity. Such hypothesis does
not stand to reason nor can it be accepted as valid in terms of law.
An injured person is compensated for the loss which he incurs as a
result of physical injury and not for physical injury itself. In other
words, compensation is given only for what is lost due to accident
in terms of an equivalent in money insofar as the nature of money
admits for the loss sustained. In an accident, if a person loses a
limb or eye or sustains an injury, the Court while computing
damages for the loss of organs or physical injury, does not value a
limb or eye in isolation, but only values totality of the harm which
the loss has entailed the loss of amenities of life and infliction of
pain and suffering: the loss of the good things of life, joys of life
and the positive infliction of pain and distress."
18. Further, it has been held in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra) that
certain relevant factors should be taken into consideration while
awarding compensation under the head of future prospect of income. The
relevant paragraph read as under:
"27. The question as to the methodology required to be applied
for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss of
future earnings, however, as far as possible should be based on
certain principles. A person may have a bright future prospect; he
21 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
might have become eligible to promotion immediately; there might
have been chances of an immediate pay revision, whereas in
another the nature of employment was such that he might not have
continued in service; his chance of promotion, having regard to
the nature of employment may be distant or remote. It is,
therefore, difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which
should be applied in all situations. There are divergent views. In
some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or
guess work may be inevitable. That may be so."
19. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid
case, it would be just and proper for this Court, and keeping in mind her
past results we take Rs.10,000/- as her monthly notional income for
computation of just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss
of income. Further, the High Court has failed to take into consideration
the future prospects of income based on the principles laid down by this
Court in catena of cases referred to supra. Therefore, the appellant is
justified in seeking for re-enhancement under this head as well and we
hold that the claimant- appellant is entitled to 50% increase under this
head as per the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Santosh
Devi (supra). The relevant paragraph reads as under:
"13. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), another two Judge Bench
considered various factors relevant for determining the
compensation payable in cases involving motor accidents, noticed
22 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
apparent divergence in the views expressed by this Court in
different cases, referred to large number of precedents including
the judgments in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362,
Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Company Ltd. 1951
AC 601, Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. 1942
AC 601 and made an attempt to limit the exercise of discretion by
the Tribunals and the High Courts in the matter of award of
compensation by laying down straightjacket formula under
different headings, some of which are enumerated below:
(i) Addition to income for future prospects In Susamma Thomas
this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit the
income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the
income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables
and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb,
an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of
the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income
is in the taxable range, the words "actual salary" should be read
as "actual salary less tax"). The addition should be only 30% if
the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no
addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years.
Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is
necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being
23 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the
deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision
for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual
income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only
in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.
Therefore, taking both the aspects into account, the total amount of
compensation under this head is calculated as Rs.22,68,000/-
[(Rs.10,000/-x 70/100 + 10,000 x 70/100 x 50/100) x 12 x 18]
20. The compensation under the head pain & suffering and mental
agony was awarded by the High Court after recording concurrent
finding with the award passed by the Tribunal. However, the courts
below have not recorded the nature of the permanent disablement
sustained by the appellant, while awarding Rs.1,00,000/- under this
head which is too meager an amount and is contrary to the judgment of
R.D. Hattangadi and Govind Yadav cases (supra). The relevant
paragraphs of Govind Yadav case read as under:
"25. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain,
suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg was
meager. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the
hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the
tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain
and trauma suffered by a person whose limb is amputated as a
result of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets artificial
24 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
limb, he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social
stigma throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the
tribunals and the courts should make a broad guess for the
purpose of fixing the amount of compensation.
26. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young
man of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma
of not being able to do his normal work. Therefore, we feel that
ends of justice will be met by awarding him a sum of Rs 1,50,000
in lieu of pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation
of leg." Therefore, under this head the amount awarded should be
enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- as the Doctor-PW2 has opined that at
the time of walking with support of crutches, the claimant-
appellant will be suffering pain permanently. Therefore, under this
head it has to be enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.
21. The loss of amenity and attendant charges awarded by the
courts below at Rs.1,00,000/- is also too meager an amount as the
appellant has permanently lost her amenity of both the legs. For
the purpose of walking, squatting, running and also studying
throughout her life and particularly, at the advanced age, she will
be requiring the attendant for giving assistance to attend the
nature's call and also at the time of sitting or moving around.
Therefore, the compensation at this head is required to be
enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- based upon the
25 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
principle laid down by this court in Govind Yadav case (supra),
the relevant paragraph of which reads as under:
"27. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of
amenities was also meagre. It can only be a matter of imagination
as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of his life with
one artificial leg. The appellant can be expected to live for at least
50 years. During this period he will not be able to live like a
normal human being and will not be able to enjoy life. The
prospects of his marriage have considerably reduced. Therefore, it
would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs 1,50,000
for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life."
22. The amount of compensation awarded under the head of 'Loss of
enjoyment of life and marriage prospects' at Rs.2,00,000/- is totally
inadequate since her marriage prospect has substantially reduced and on
account of permanent disablement she will be deprived of enjoyment of
life. Therefore, it would be just and proper to enhance the compensation
from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. In so far as, purchase of crutches
periodically, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.50,000/-."
27. In view of the principles set forth in the V. Mekala's (supra)
and considering facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and appropriate
for this Court to fix his notional monthly income at Rs.10,000/-.
28. A further perusal of the award reveals that learned Tribunal has
erred in not adding any amount towards future prospects to the income of the
26 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
deceased. As per the settled law on compensation, 40% is to be added as
future prospects. Furthermore, as per the settled law on compensation and
considering the age of the deceased as 18 years, multiplier of 18 would be
applicable.
29. A further perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal
has awarded the compensation on the lower side to the claimant/cross-
objector under the heads of Pain and suffering, which is required to be
enhanced.
30. It is trite that permanent disability suffered by an individual not
only impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities, but there are
multiple non-quantifiable implications for the victim. Further, the very fact
that healthy person turns into invalid being deprived of normal
companionship and incapable of leading a productive life makes one suffer
loss of dignity. As borne out from the record, the claimant/cross-objector has
suffered grievous injuries on his person including injuries on his upper
limbs, right hand and suffered permanent disability. Disability certificate
(Ex.P-30) was produced, wherein, the claimant/cross-objector was held to be
suffering disability of 90%. Further, he was hospitalized for over one month
because of the accident in question. This fairly concludes the fact that the
appellant/claimant has suffered immense amount of pain and agony due to
the accident in question.
31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'KS Muralidhar versus
R Subbulakshmi and another 2024 INSC 886 highlighted the intangible but
27 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
devastating consequence of pain and suffering. The relevant portion of the
same is reproduce as under:-
"15. Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the
injuries suffered, the `pain and suffering' caused, and the
life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the
claimant-appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as
reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant-
appellant to be justified and as such, award
Rs.15,00,000/- under the head `pain and suffering', fully
conscious of the fact that the prayer of the claimant-
appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum
of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just,
fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded."
32. Therefore, in view of the above judgment and facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant
compensation of 10 lakhs under the heads of pain and suffering.
33. Further perusal of the record shows that the claimant/cross-
objector suffered various grievous injuries on his body making his life
miserable. As a result, he had to depend on others for his daily activities and
likely to have employed an attendant to assist him for his physical
movements. This Court has dealt with similar issue in case titled as Ajay
Kumar vs. Jasbir Singh and others, passed in FAO No 1356-2007, decided
on 18.02.2025. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
28 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
"ATTENDANT CHARGES
36. So far as attendant charges is concerned, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and others,
2020(2)R.C.R.(Civil) 27, held that where injured was a female
child aged about12 years and date of the accident was
18.10.2007 and it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
to determine the attendant charges, Multiplier system should be
applied. Relevant paragraphs No. 22 and 25 of the aforesaid
judgment are as under:
"22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the
High Court at the rate of Rs.2,500 per month for 44
years, which works out to Rs. 13,20,000. Unfortunately,
this system is not a proper system. Multiplier system is
used to balance out various factors. When compensation
is awarded in lump sum, various facts are taken into
consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum,
this court has always followed the multiplier system. The
multiplier system should be followed not only for
determining the compensation on account of loss of
income but also for determining the attendant charges,
etc. This system was recognized by this Court in Gobald
Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, 1958-65 ACJ
179 (SC).
The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the
rate of interest payable on the lump sum award, the
longevity of the claimant, and also other issues such as
the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative
methods, the multiplier method has been recognized as
29 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures
better justice between the parties and thus results in
award of just compensation' within the meaning of the
Act.
23. xxxxx
24. xxxxx
25. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the
basic amount taken for determining attendant charges is
very much on the lower side. We must remember that
this little girl is severely suffering from incontinence
meaning that she does not have control over her bodily
functions like passing urine and faeces. As she grows
older, she will not be able to handle her periods. She
requires an attendant virtually 24 hours a day. She
requires an attendant who though may not be medically
trained but must be capable of handling a child who is
bedridden. She would require an attendant who would
ensure that she does not suffer from bed sores. The
claimant has placed before us a notification of the State
of Haryana of the year 2010, wherein the wages for
skilled labourer is Rs.4,846 per month. We, therefore,
assess the cost of one attendant at Rs.5,000 and she will
require two attendants which works out to Rs.10,000/-
per month, which comes to Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum,
and using the multiplier of 18 it works out Rs. 21,60,000
for attendant charges for her entire life. This take care of
all the pecuniary damages.
37. In view of the above as per the Disability
Certificate, which is 100% and which requires full-time
attendant, therefore, it would be appropriate to decide the
30 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
attendant charges accordingly. 100% disability would require
day and night attendants, meaning thereby two attendants
would be required. Further 100% disability of the appellant-
claimant would require trained attendant i.e. who should have
knowledge of nursing and experience as well. Further the
minimum amount which an attendant would demand is
Rs.10,000/-. Since two attendants are required for 100%
disability, it would be appropriate to take the minimum
amount of Rs.10,000/- each of two attendants i.e. amounting
to Rs.20,000/- for two attendants.
38. In the instant case, there is substantial medical
evidence establishing that the injured appellant-claimant has
suffered from a 100% disability of the lower limb, as per Ex.
P-4. Over the past 20 years since the accident on 31.05.2005,
the injured has faced significant challenges in leading a
normal life. Furthermore, medical testimony confirms that
the injured person is unable to carry out daily activities
independently.
39. Applying the principles laid down in Kajal's case
(supra) it is evident that the appellant-claimant requires
continuous assistance from two attendants for 24 hours a
day. In Kajal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
emphasized that the multiplier system must be followed to
31 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
determine attendant charges, taking into account factors such
as longevity, inflation, interest rates, and the uncertainties of
life. The Court also highlighted that an individual with severe
disabilities requires dedicated attendants, even if they are not
medically trained, to ensure proper care and prevent further
complications such as bedsores.
34. In view of the above judgment and considering age and
disability suffered by the appellant/claimant, the appellant is entitled to
attendant charges to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.
35. A further perusal of the award shows that the learned tribunal
erred in not awarding any amount of compensation under the head of 'loss of
marriage prospects', despite the claimant being only 18 years old at the time
of the accident and having his entire life before him. The learned Tribunal
failed to consider the impact of injury on his ability to marry, find a life
partner, and enjoy normal matrimonial prospects. Hon'ble the Supreme
Court, in its decision in Rahul Ganpat Rao Sable versus National
Insurance Company, 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 574 squarely addresses this
omission and recognizes that such non-pecuniary loss arising from
permanent disability including loss of marriage prospects deserves just
compensation.
36. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"Loss of Marriage prospects:
20. No compensation has been awarded under the above
head. Considering the nature of injuries duly approved
32 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
and certified, the appellant would be entitled to
compensation under loss of marriage prospects. Again,
relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
Chaus Tausif Almiya (supra), we award afixed
compensation of Rs.3 lakhs under the said head.In view
of the above, this Court in the interest of justice is
awarding 50000 under the conventional head of 'loss of
marriage prospects."
37. Therefore, in accordance with the above referred to judgment
and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court
deems it fit to award Rs.4,00,000/- under the head of loss of marriage
prospects.
38. A further perusal of the award reveals that meager amount is
granted by the learned Tribunal under the head of special diet and no amount
was granted under the heads of transportation, loss of amenities and medical
expenses for future treatment. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of
this Court.
CONCLUSION
39. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the above referred to judgments, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company
is dismissed being devoid of any merits, whereas cross-objection filed by the
claimant/cross-objector is allowed. The award dated 08.04.2013 is modified
accordingly. The claimant/cross-objector is held entitled to enhanced
compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-
33 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Income Rs.10,000/-
2 Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.4,000/-
(40% of Rs.10000/-)
3 Annual Income Rs.1,68,000/-
(Rs.14000/- X 12)
4 Loss of future earning on Rs.1,51,200/-
account of 90% disability (Rs.168000/- X 90%)
5 Multiplier of 18 Rs.27,21,600/-
(Rs.1,51,200/-X 18)
6 Medical Expenses Rs.3,20,000/-
7 Pain and suffering Rs.10,00,000/-
8 Attendant Charges Rs.1,00,000/-
9 Transportation Charges Rs.70,000/-
10 Loss of amenities of life + loss Rs.5,00,000/-
of marriage prospects
11 Future medical expenses Rs.2,00,000/-
12 Special Diet Rs.2,00,000/-
13 Total compensation Rs.51,11,600/-
awarded:-
14 Deduction:- Rs.8,50,000/-
Amount awarded by Tribunal
15 Enhanced amount of Rs.42,61,600/-
compensation ( 51,11,600 - 8,50,000)
40. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the amount so calculated
shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition, till the date of realization.
34 of 35
FAO-3690-2013 (O&M) &
41. Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal
is directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with
interest in the accounts of the claimant/cross-objector, as per ratio settled by
the learned Tribunal, vide its award dated 08.04.2013. The claimant/cross-
objector is directed to furnish his bank account details to the Tribunal.
42. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
12.03.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Saahil JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
35 of 35
