[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Kumar Jain vs Chiranji Lal And Ors on 20 March, 2026
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 18:42:18 :::
FAO No.1610 of 2002 2026:PHHC: 044073
subsequently treated at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Delhi, where he was
advised bed rest.
4. The appellant filed a claim pe on seeking compensa on on the
ground that he had incurred medical expenses of about ₹25,000/-, was
earning ₹5,000/- per month as a businessman and had suffered permanent
disability to the extent of 50%, thereby reducing his earning capacity.
5. The claim pe on was contested by the respondents. Upon
apprecia on of evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. The said finding has
a/ained finality.
6. The Tribunal awarded a total compensa on of ₹1,50,000/- under
different heads, including ₹90,000/- towards loss of future earnings,
₹50,000/- towards pain & suffering and ₹10,000/- towards medical and
incidental expenses.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
Tribunal has grossly underes mated the income and loss of earning capacity
of the appellant. It is submi/ed that the Income Tax Return (Ex.PG) proves
that the annual income of the appellant was more than ₹48,000/- and that
the permanent disability to the extent of 50% stands duly proved by
Disability Cer ficate (Ex.PB).
8. It is further contended that the compensa on ought to have
been assessed in accordance with the se/led principles laid down in Raj
Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121
and Na onal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680.
9. None has appeared on behalf of the insurer at the me of
hearing.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
record, this Court finds merit in the present appeal.
11. The medical evidence on record establishes that the appellant
suffered fracture of D-11 vertebra, as proved by PW5 - Dr. S.N. Sharma
2 of 4
FAO No.1610 of 2002 2026:PHHC: 044073
(Ex.PD). Further, Disability Cer ficate (Ex.PB), duly proved by PW2 - Dr. S.P.
Sharma, shows that the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent
of 50% due to compressed fracture of D11 vertebra and weakness in both
lower limbs.
12. In view of the nature of injuries, par cularly involving the spine,
which affects mobility and physical func oning, and considering that the
appellant was engaged in business ac vity requiring movement and physical
effort, the func onal disability is liable to be taken at 50%. The principle laid
down in Raj Kumar's case (supra) is fully applicable.
13. As regards income, the Income Tax Return (Ex.PG) establishes
that the annual income of the appellant was ₹48,037/-, which is rounded off
to ₹48,000/-.
14. The date of birth of the appellant is 27.11.1959, as per Ex.PG.
Thus, at the me of accident, he was below 40 years of age. In view of the
law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), an addi on of 40% towards future
prospects is warranted. The benefit of future prospects is applicable even in
pending appeals. Accordingly, the annual income aEer adding future
prospects comes to ₹67,200/-.
15. Applying the mul plier of 15, as per Sarla Verma (supra), the
total income comes to ₹10,08,000/-. Considering func onal disability at 50%,
the loss of earning capacity is assessed at ₹5,04,000/-.
16. The Tribunal has thus erred in arbitrarily taking the loss of
income at ₹500/- per month, which is contrary to the evidence on record and
se/led legal principles.
17. The appellant remained under treatment at mul ple hospitals
and suffered a serious spinal injury. It is reasonable to infer that he must
have incurred expenses on treatment, transporta on and a/endant charges.
18. Further, the appellant must have undergone considerable pain
and suffering and has also suffered loss of ameni es of life due to permanent
disability.
3 of 4
FAO No.1610 of 2002 2026:PHHC: 044073
19. Accordingly, the compensa on is re-assessed as under:
Sr.
Heads Amount (₹)
No.
1 Future loss of earning (50% disability) 5,04,000
2 Medical expenses 20,000
3 Pain and suffering 50,000
4 A/endant charges 11,000
5 Transporta on charges 10,000
6 Loss of ameni es 30,000
Total 6,25,000
20. The Tribunal had awarded ₹1,50,000/-. Thus, the enhanced
compensa on comes to ₹4,75,000/-.
21. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The compensa on
awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to ₹6,25,000/-, resul ng in an
enhancement of ₹4,75,000/-.
22. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim pe on ll its realiza on.
23. The liability to pay the enhanced compensa on shall be joint and
several upon the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
24 All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed of. Order
accordingly.
March 20, 2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No
Whether reportable? : Yes/No
Uploaded on: March 20, 2026
4 of 4
