[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhanwar Singh And Anr vs Rajender Son Of Sukh Lal on 18 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
FAO-496-2002 (O&M) and
XOBJ-71-CII-2002
Bhanwar Singh and another . . . . Appellants
Vs.
Rajender . . . . Respondent
****
Reserved on: 16.03.2026
Pronounced on: 18.03.2026
Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Present: - None for the appellants.
Mr. Susheel Sheoran, Advocate
for the cross-objector/respondent.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the driver & owner of
the offending vehicle, assailing the award dated 05.10.2001 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, whereby compensation to
the tune of ₹1,25,000/- along with interest was awarded in favour of the
respondent-claimant. The claimant-injured has also filed cross-objections
seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. At the time of hearing, despite due intimation, none appeared
on behalf of the appellants. It is evident that the appellants are no longer
interested in pursuing the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to
be dismissed in default for want of prosecution.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respondent-cross
objector/claimant on the question of enhancement of compensation and
perused the record.
4. As borne out from the record, on 17.06.1997, the claimant-
Rajender was travelling in Jeep No. DL-2C-3236 from Naurangabad to Dhana.
The said vehicle, owned by appellant No.2 and driven by appellant No.1, was
1 of 4
FAO-496-2002 and 2026:PHHC: 042155
XOBJ-71-CII-2002
being driven in a rash and negligent manner. On the way, the driver lost
control and the vehicle struck against a kikkar tree, resulting in serious
injuries to the claimant, particularly on his left upper limb, forehead and
head.
5. The injured was initially treated at Anand Nursing Home,
Bhiwani and was thereafter referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi, where
he remained admitted for 13 days. The vehicle in question was admittedly
uninsured.
6. The claim petition was contested by the appellants, who denied
the occurrence of the accident, as well as the nature of injuries and expenses
incurred.
7. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal returned a
finding of rash and negligent driving against appellant No.1 and awarded
compensation of ₹1,25,000/- along with interest, holding both the driver and
owner jointly and severally liable.
8. Learned counsel for the claimant has contended that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. It is argued that
as per evidence on record, the claimant incurred medical expenses to the
tune of ₹55,097/-; suffered 21% permanent disability in relation to his left
upper limb; and that he was about 32 years of age and working as a labourer
at the time of accident. It is urged that even in the absence of documentary
proof of income, minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time i.e.
₹1,548.74/- per month ought to be taken into account; and compensation
towards future loss of earning capacity deserves to be reassessed accordingly
by applying settled principles.
9. This Court finds merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of
the claimant.
10. The medical evidence on record establishes that the claimant
suffered grievous injuries, including fractures of both bones of the forearm
and humerus, requiring surgical intervention (plating and nailing). The
2 of 4
FAO-496-2002 and 2026:PHHC: 042155
XOBJ-71-CII-2002
disability certificate reflects 21% permanent disability of the left upper limb,
accompanied by restricted movement and chronic complications.
11. Although the disability is assessed qua the limb, the functional
disability affecting earning capacity has to be assessed in the context of the
occupation of the injured. The claimant being a labourer, use of upper limbs
is integral to his vocation. Therefore, the functional disability impacting
earning capacity can reasonably be assessed at 30%, keeping in view the
nature of injuries and occupation.
12. In the absence of documentary evidence of income, the notional
income is taken as ₹1,550/- per month, taking cue from and in consonance
with the minimum wages prevailing in the year 1997.
13. The claimant being 32 years of age at the time of accident,
addition of 40% towards future prospects is justified in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 and subsequent judgments
extending the benefit even to self-employed persons.
14. Thus, the computation is as follows:
Monthly income : ₹1,550/-
Annual income : ₹18,600/-
Addition of 40% future prospects : ₹26,040/- per annum
Multiplier (age 32) : 16
Total -(₹18,900 × 16) : ₹4,16,640/-
Loss of earning capacity (30%) : ₹1,24,992/-
15. Further, the claimant has proved medical expenses of ₹55,097/-,
which are rounded off to ₹60,000/- considering incidental expenses.
16. The claimant remained hospitalized and under treatment for a
considerable period and would have required attendant care, transportation
and would have suffered loss of income during treatment. Compensation
under these conventional heads also deserves enhancement.
17. Accordingly, the compensation is reassessed as under:
3 of 4
FAO-496-2002 and 2026:PHHC: 042155
XOBJ-71-CII-2002
Head of Compensation Amount (₹)
Loss of future earning capacity 1,24,992.00
Medical expenses 60,000.00
Pain and suffering 10,000.00
Attendant charges 3,000.00
Transportation 3,000.00
Loss of income during treatment 3,000.00
Total 2,03,992.00
Rounded off to ₹2,04,000/-
18. Since the Tribunal has already awarded ₹1,25,000/-, the
claimant shall be entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹79,000/-.
19. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The liability to pay
the enhanced compensation shall remain joint and several upon the
appellants (driver and owner), as rightly held by the Tribunal, particularly in
view of the fact that the offending vehicle was uninsured.
20. In view of the above:
The appeal filed by the driver and owner is dismissed in default for
want of prosecution.
The cross-objections filed by the claimant are partly allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
21. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
18.03.2026 JUDGE
Vivek
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
Uploaded on: 18.03.2026
4 of 4
