[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pankaj vs Dharambir And Ors on 19 March, 2026

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

                                                               -1-
FAO-5788-2018


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                        FAO-5788-2018

Pankaj                                                         ......Appellant

                               Vs.

Dharambir and ors.                                             ......Respondents

                               Date of Reserve: 12.03.2026
                               Date of Pronouncement: 19.03.2026
                               Uploaded on:- 23.03.2026

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. Tushar Gera, Advocate for Mr. Jatin Hans, Advocate
            for the appellant.

            Mr. Ram Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana
            for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

            Mr.Sandeep Suri, Advocate
            for respondent No. 4.

                  *****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

24.01.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Charkhi Dadri

in the claim petition bearing No. 54 of 2015/2017 filed under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of

compensation granted to the claimant to the tune of Rs.25,000/- along with

interest @ 7% per annum, on account of injury suffered by him in a Motor

Vehicular Accident, occurred on 16.09.2015.

1 of 12

FAO-5788-2018

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to

quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of

the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves

to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the

compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, however, vehemently

argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as

assessed by learned Tribunal, has rightly been granted to the appellant/claimant.

Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole

record of this case with their able assistance.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

6. 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

2 of 12

FAO-5788-2018

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. 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.

(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,

3 of 12

FAO-5788-2018

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 (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/-




                                   4 of 12


FAO-5788-2018

[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)].

7. 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."

8. 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';

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.

5 of 12

FAO-5788-2018

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;

(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 itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that

6 of 12

FAO-5788-2018

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:

                            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.

7 of 12

FAO-5788-2018

9. A perusal of the award reveals that the appellant/claimant was stated

to be 6 years old at the time of accident and has sustained critical injuries due to

the accident. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has granted a lump sum

compensation of Rs. 25,000/- without properly appreciating the nature and impact

of the injuries suffered by the claimant/appellant.

10. A further perusal of the award reveals that the claimant/appellant

remained admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak for a considerable period due to critical

injuries. Such hospitalization itself reflects the seriousness of the trauma, pain,

and suffering endured. The learned Tribunal has failed to adequately quantify

compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, medical expenses, special

diet, marriage prospects which are essential components in personal injury cases.

11. Further, the disability certificate (Ex. P6) proves that the claimant has

suffered 10% disability. Even if the disability pertains to a specific part of the

body, its functional impact on the earning capacity and day-to-day life of the

claimant/appellant cannot be ignored. The learned Tribunal erred in not assessing

the effect of such disability on the overall earning capacity and quality of life of

the injured.

12. It is a settled position that compensation must be "just, fair and

reasonable" and not merely symbolic. The award of a nominal amount defeats the

very object of benevolent legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its recent authoritative

pronouncement Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhairabari & Anr,

2025 INSC 1070, has categorically held that a minor child who dies or suffers

permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident cannot be equated with a non-

earning individual merely because the child was not engaged in gainful

8 of 12

FAO-5788-2018

employment at the time of the accident. The Court has further clarified that, in

such cases, the computation of compensation under the head "loss of income"

must be undertaken by adopting at the very least the minimum wages prescribed

for a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the State where the

cause of action arises.

14. Therefore, considering the judgment referred to above and the

minimum wages of a skilled worker prevalent at the time of accident, this Court

deems it fit to reassess the income of claimant/appellant as Rs.6,000/-.

15. Furthermore, multiplier of 18 should be applied considering the age

of the applicant/claimant, as per settled law.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'KS Muralidhar versus R

Subbulakshmi and another 2024 INSC 886 highlighted the intangible but

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."

17. Therefore, in view of the above judgment and facts and

circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant

9 of 12

FAO-5788-2018

compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) under the heads of pain and

suffering.

18. Furthermore, the claimant/appellant stated to be remained in the

hospital from 16.09.2015 to 23.09.2015. Discharge Card (Ex P5) was placed on

record for the same. However, no amount for medical expenses was awarded for

the same. Therefore, amount of Rs.30,000/- is granted for the same.

19. 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 6 years old at the time of the accident

and having his entire life before her. The learned Tribunal failed to consider the

impact of her injury on her 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. 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 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."

10 of 12

FAO-5788-2018

20. 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.30,000/- under the head of loss of marriage prospects.

21. A further perusal of the award reveals that no amount is granted by

the learned Tribunal under the heads of special diet. Therefore, the award requires

indulgence and interference of this Court.

RELIEF

22. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award dated

24.01.2018 is modified. Accordingly, as per the settled principles of law as laid

down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the appellant-claimant is

held entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation as calculated below:-

      Sr. Heads                                Compensation Awarded
      No.
       1    Income                             Rs.6,000/-
       2    Loss of     future   prospects Rs.2400/- (40% of Rs.6000/-)
            (40%)
       3    Annual Income                      Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.8400/- X 12)
       4    Loss of future earning on Rs.10080/-             (Rs.1,00,800/-     X
            account of 10% disability 10%)
       5    Multiplier of 18                   Rs.1,81,440/- (Rs.10080/-X 18)
       6    Medical Expenses                   Rs.30,000/-
       7    Pain and suffering                 Rs.50,000/-
       8    Loss of marriage prospects         Rs.30,000/-
       9    Special Diet                       Rs.30,000/-
       10 Total             compensation Rs.3,21,440/-
          awarded:-
       11 Deduction:-                Rs.25,000/-
          Amount awarded by Tribunal
       12 Enhanced     amount              of Rs.2,96,440 /-
          compensation                        (3,21,440- 25,000)




                                    11 of 12


FAO-5788-2018

23. 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 claimants are granted the interest @ 9% per

annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the

date of its realization.

24. Respondent 4-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced

amount of compensation 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 account of the claimant/appellant. The claimant/appellant is directed to furnish

his bank account details to the Tribunal.