Atul Arora vs Santokh Singh And Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
113 FAO-3871-2002 (O&M)
Date of decision:12.11.2026
ATUL ARORA ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
SANTOKH SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: None for appellant.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
for respondent-Insurance Company.
*
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
Present appeal has been preferred by appellant-claimant Atul
Arora being aggrieved by impugned award dated 22.02.2002 passed by
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as
‘ Tribunal ’), for enhancement in compensation of Rs.1,13,865/- awarded to
him on account of injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident dated
24.12.1999 allegedly caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent-
driver while driving truck bearing registration No.ULT-8517 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘ offending vehicle ’).
2. Since in the present appeal the only issue raised by the
appellant-claimant is with regard to the quantum of compensation and no
appeal or cross-objection has been preferred by any of the respondents to
challenge findings of learned Tribunal as regards to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle driven by respondent-driver, therefore, the
detailed facts regarding the manner of accident are not being noticed herein
for the sake of brevity.
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3871-2002 (O&M) -2-
3. In the present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following
compensation to appellant-claimant:
Loss on account of
Rs.13,865/-
damage
Lump-sum compensation
Rs.1,00,000/-
on account of disability
and no fault liability
Total Rs.1,13,865/-
4. Appellant-claimant has sought enhancement in compensation
on the following grounds that :
●
Learned Tribunal had erred in not granting
compensation on the basis of functional disability (as
permanent disability is 30%);
●
Learned Tribunal has erred in not taking the income of
appellant-claimant as was pleaded by the appellant-
claimant;
●
Future prospects were not added while determining loss
of earning capacity. Future prospects to the extent 40 %
of monthly income needs to be added as appellant-
claimant was 20 years of age at the time of accident.
●
Multiplier was not applied by learned Tribunal;
●
Compensation for medical expenses & other expenses
and pain and sufferings, loss of future prospects and
future amenities, for loss of income during treatment and
for future medical expenses has not been granted to
which appellant-claimant is entitled to; and
●
Enhancement of compensation on account of damage to
the motorcycle on which the injured was travelling is
warranted being insufficient in view of damage and
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3871-2002 (O&M) -3-
amount spent on repairs.
5. Injured-appellant-claimant himself appeared as PW-2 and stated
that on account of accident dated 24.12.1999 he had suffered injuries in the
abdomen, fracture in hip joint and fracture below the knees in both the legs.
He further stated that he was initially taken to Rajindra hospital, from where
he was referred to Dayanand Medical College and hospital, Ludhiana and
remained admitted there from 24.12.1999 to 03.02.2000. The appellant-
claimant was also treated at Saket Hospital, Patiala and at the clinic of Dr.
Harish Sood, plastic surgeon. In order to prove the nature of injuries, nature
of treatment, period of hospitalization and expenses incurred on the
treatment of the appellant-claimant Dr. Naveesh Garg, senior resident of
plastic surgery department of DMC Ludhiana appeared as PW-4 and stated
that the appellant-claimant remained admitted in the hospital from
25.12.1999 to 03.02.2000 and laparotomy was done due to bladder tear.
Second operation was done on 01.01.2000 in which debridement and grating
was done on right and left side. He also proved Ex.P13 report regarding
surgery conducted by Dr. Charanjiv, Dr. Ravinder and Dr. Sumit Garg. Copy
of report of operation done on 25.12.1999 is Ex.P14. The appellant-claimant
was operated upon for the third time on 12.01.2000 regarding intestinal
obstruction in which again laparotomy was done (Ex.P15). Fourth operation
was done on 28.01.2000 in which grafting of the skin of the right thigh was
done (Ex.P16). He also stated that the appellant-claimant was charged a sum
of Rs.73,640/- on account of treatment done in Dayanand Medical College
and hospital. Receipt of the hospital expenses was placed as Ex.P17. Dr.
Hari Om PW-5, Medical officer, Roshanpur Jhugian, Patiala, had stated that
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3871-2002 (O&M) -4-
the appellant-claimant had suffered disability to the extent of 30% on
account of moderate stiffness of left knee and left ankle joint with mild
stiffness of right knee joint with shortening of leg lower limb by half inch.
Disability certificate was proved as Ex.P1.
6. From the nature of injuries stated by PW4 and PW5 and extent
of disability found by board of doctors, it is clearly established that injured-
appellant-claimant had suffered grievous injuries resulting into permanent
disability compromising his earning capacity to a great deal. The functional
disability therefore has to be determined keeping in view extent of
permanent disability along with nature of job which injured-appellant-
claimant was performing prior to the accident.
7. In present case, injured-appellant-claimant was a student of
B.com aged 20 years old at the time of accident and earning Rs.2,500/- per
month by imparting tuitions to 3-4 students. Since the appellant-claimant
was a young boy the injuries suffered by him i.e. shortening of one leg,
would lead to loss of future earning capacity and accordingly functional
disability is taken as 30%. In absence of any material/reliable evidence to
conclude income of injured, same is taken as Rs.1,900/- per month i.e.
minimum wages payable to unskilled worker in the year 1999. Injured-
appellant-claimant was aged 20 years at the time of accident to which there
is no rebuttal. Accordingly future prospects to the extent of 40% for the
purposes of determining loss of earning capacity also needs to be added in
view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. , 2017 (16) SCC 680. Multiplier
of ‘18’ shall be applicable as per the age of injured in view of judgment
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3871-2002 (O&M) -5-
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. , 2009(6) SCC 121. Accordingly, loss of
earning capacity payable to injured-appellant-claimant has to be determined
by taking functional disability equivalent to 30% after taking monthly
income of the injured to be Rs.1,900/-, by adding future prospects to the
extent of 40% and by applying multiplier of ‘18’.
8. keeping in view nature of injuries, nature of treatment,
permanent disability, period of hospitalization and suffered permanent
disability to the extent of 30% the appellant-claimant must have undergone
immense pain and sufferings. Accordingly, he is entitled to Rs.50,000/-
under the head pain and sufferings . Being a young boy the appellant-
claimant would be deprived of future amenities of life as well as future
prospects of life/marriage prospects, therefore, he shall be entitled to
compensation for loss of future prospects including marriage prospects
and future amenities of life which is quantified at Rs.75,000/- .
Compensation for medical expenses, transportation, special diet and
attendant charges is quantified as Rs.30,000 /-. No compensation on
account of medical expenses which were admitted to be reimbursed by
employer of appellant-claimant’s father, is payable. Learned Tribunal has
rightly not granted these expenses by disbelieving assertions of appellant-
claimant that only 50% was paid. Once, it is admitted that medical expenses
were reimbursed then it was duty of claimant to show as to what was not
reimbursed by employer. Records of employer were not produced to show
extent of unpaid medical bills. Appellant-claimant must have also suffered
loss of income for the time he was under treatment and keeping in view
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3871-2002 (O&M) -6-
period of hospitalization and nature of injuries, it is made out that appellant-
claimant must have not been able to attend tuitions for at least 06 months.
Accordingly, compensation for loss of income during treatment is assessed
as Rs . 11,400 /- (Rs.1,900/- X 6). Since the evidence regarding damage to
scooter was accepted by learned Tribunal to its fullest, therefore, no
enhancement on this account is justified. Similarly, in absence of any
evidence showing possibility of future medical expenses, future medical
expenses are not payable.
9. Re-worked compensation payable to appellant-claimant is as
under:-
Income Rs.1,900/-
Rs.1,900/-
per month
per month
Future prospects 40%
Rs.2,660/-
(1900+760)
30% Permanent
30% of Rs.2,660/- Rs.798/-
disability
Multiplier 18 18
Total loss of earning
Rs.798/-X18X12 Rs.1,72,368/-
capacity
Loss of income
Rs.1,900/- X 6 Rs.11,400/-
during treatment
Compensation for
Rs.30,000/-
medical expenses,
transportation,
special diet and
attendant charges
Compensation for
Rs.50,000/-
pain and sufferings
Compensation for
Rs.75,000/-
loss of future
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3871-2002 (O&M) -7-
prospects and future
amenities of life
Loss on account of
Rs.13,865/-
Rs.13,865/-
damage
(by Tribunal)
Total compensation
Rs.1,13,865/-
awarded by the
Tribunal
Total compensation
Rs.3,52,633/-
awarded in appeal
Enhanced
Rs.3,52,633 /-
Rs.2,38,768/-
compensation
(awarded in appeal) -
Rs.1,13,865/-(awarded by
Tribunal)
10. Appellant-claimant shall also be entitled to interest over
enhanced amount to the extent of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim
petition till its realization. The liability of respondents to pay compensation
shall be as per award.
11. Present appeal is allowed in above terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
JUDGE
12.11.2026
Sunil Chander
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document