[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ishwar Singh vs Suresh Chand Sharma on 13 March, 2026
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2026 16:02:56 :::
FAO No.2518 of 2003 2026:PHHC: 039076
a ribu ng the accident to the driver of the Tampo. On the other hand, the
owner of the Tampo pleaded that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the bus driver.
4. Upon apprecia on of the evidence led by the par es, the
learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of bus No. RJ-09P-0664. Consequently, the liability
to compensate the claimant was fastened upon the driver and owner of the
offending bus.
5. The Tribunal therea,er assessed the compensa on payable to
the claimant and awarded a sum of ₹20,000/- along with interest, which was
made recoverable jointly and severally from the driver and owner of the bus.
6. Dissa sfied with the quantum of compensa on, the claimant has
preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant was
working as a Conductor with the Delhi Transport Corpora on (DTC) at the
me of the accident and had suffered mul ple injuries including fractures in
his leg. It is contended that on account of the injuries, the appellant
remained off duty for a considerable period and suffered loss of salary
besides enduring prolonged pain and suffering during the course of
treatment. On these grounds, it is argued that the amount of compensa on
awarded by the Tribunal is wholly inadequate and deserves to be enhanced.
8. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 (driver of
the bus) was reported to have died. However, no legal representa ves came
forward to be impleaded in his place. Respondent No.2 (owner of the bus),
despite service, failed to appear and was accordingly proceeded against ex
parte.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully
perused the record of the case.
10. It is not in dispute that the appellant was employed as a
Conductor with Delhi Transport Corpora on. However, the principal
2 of 4
FAO No.2518 of 2003 2026:PHHC: 039076
conten on raised by the appellant is that he remained off duty for a
considerable period and suffered loss of income.
11. A perusal of the record reveals that no documentary or oral
evidence was produced by the appellant to substan ate the said claim. In
par cular, no official from Delhi Transport Corpora on was examined to
prove that the appellant was not paid salary during the period, he remained
under treatment. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal rightly
declined to grant compensa on under the head of loss of income.
12. Likewise, the appellant failed to produce any disability cer ficate
or medical evidence establishing permanent disability arising out of the
injuries sustained in the accident. No doctor was examined to prove that the
injuries suffered by the claimant resulted in any permanent impairment
affec ng his earning capacity.
13. In the absence of any evidence demonstra ng permanent
disability or reduc on in earning capacity, the Tribunal was jus fied in
declining compensa on under that head as well.
14. As regards medical expenses, although the claimant asserted
that he had incurred approximately ₹60,000/- on treatment, the medical bills
produced on record (Exhibits P-2 to P-20) only amounted to ₹7,888/-.
Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded ₹7,900/- towards medical expenses.
15. The Tribunal also took into considera on the fact that the
appellant had suffered a fracture in his leg and therefore, reasonably
presumed that he must have incurred certain expenses towards special diet,
transporta on and pain and suffering, and granted compensa on
accordingly.
16. It is well se led that compensa on under the Motor Vehicles Act
must be based upon reliable evidence on record, and the claimant bears the
burden of establishing the nature of injuries, medical expenditure and the
consequen al loss suffered.
17. It is also well se led that while determining compensa on under
Sec on 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal is required to
3 of 4
FAO No.2518 of 2003 2026:PHHC: 039076
award "just compensa on", which must be fair, reasonable and based upon
the evidence available on record. The assessment cannot be made on mere
conjectures or assump ons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay
Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, has held that compensa on in injury
cases must be determined on the basis of the nature of injuries, medical
evidence, extent of disability and the actual impact of such disability on the
earning capacity of the injured claimant. Similarly, in Smt. Sarla Verma and
others v. Delhi Transport Corpora$on and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that the determina on of compensa on
should follow a ra onal and consistent approach so that the award
represents a fair recompense for the loss suffered by the claimant.
18. Thus, while the Courts must ensure that compensa on awarded
is neither arbitrary nor excessive, the claimant must also substan ate the
claim by leading cogent evidence regarding the injuries suffered, medical
expenses incurred and loss of income. In the absence of such proof, the
Tribunal cannot be faulted for restric ng the compensa on to the amount
supported by the material available on record.
19. In the present case, in the absence of proof regarding loss of
income, permanent disability or higher medical expenditure, the Tribunal
cannot be faulted for awarding a lump-sum compensa on of ₹20,000/-.
20. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the
evidence available on record, this Court does not find any illegality or
inadequacy in the compensa on awarded by the learned Tribunal.
21. Consequently, the present appeal being devoid of merit is
hereby dismissed.
March 13, 2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No
Whether reportable? : Yes/No
Uploaded on: March 13, 2026
4 of 4
