Mukesh Gupta vs Dilsher

FAO-5135-2002 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
224 FAO-5135-2002 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 09.09.2026
MUKESH GUPTA ......... Appellant

VERSUS
DILSHER AND OTHERS ..... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Ketan Antil, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Sanjiv Sheoran, Advocate for respondents No.1.
Mr. Abhinav Mahant, AAG, Haryana
for respondents No.2 and 3.


YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)
1. This appeal has been instituted by the claimant for enhancement of
compensation against the Award dated 12.02.2002 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (for short “Tribunal”) in MACT Case No.283 of 2000
in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’)
vide which a sum of Rs.4,71,000/- has been awarded as compensation to claimant
due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash
and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving Jeep bearing
No.HNC-588 (for short ‘offending vehicle’) , owned by respondents No.2 and 3.
2. From the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed by
the learned Tribunal:-
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5135-2002 (O&M) -2-
“ 1. Whether petitioner suffered injuries in motor vehicle
accident, caused due to rash and negligent driving of
jeep No.HNC-588, owned by respondents No.2 and 3
and being driven by respondent no.1 on 28.09.1998 in
the area of Sonipat? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation
the petitioner is entitled, if so, how much and from
whom? OPP.
3. Relief.”
3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective
case.
4. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on the
file, learned Tribunal awarded the compensation as mentioned in para No.1 of this
judgment along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The
material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.
6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates
to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the
manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal
has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving offending
vehicle, which was owned by respondents No.2 and 3. No appeal or cross-
objections have been filed by the respondents, challenging the said finding and
accordingly, finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5135-2002 (O&M) -3-
same is affirmed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has not
appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective
while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The claimant had
suffered 60% permanent disability and he has been awarded a total compensation
of Rs.4,71,000/- for the expenses incurred on treatment, Pharmacist charges,
attendant charges, pain and suffering and transportation. Learned counsel further
argued that adequate compensation has not been awarded under pecuniary and
non-pecuniary heads and same is liable to be suitably enhanced. In support of his
contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon 2014 (1) RCR
(Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla
Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another and 2017
(16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the
award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been
appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no
interference in the same is thus called for.
9. Coming to the assessment of compensation, the law is well settled
that the compensation to be awarded for injuries suffered by victim in a motor
vehicular accident should be just and equitable. Courts have consistently held that
while money cannot erase the pain, suffering, or trauma but it is the only legal
means to provide restitution and restore the victim to his previous position as far
as possible for which ‘just compensation’ has to be assessed. It is also well settled
that while it is impossible to fully compensate for the loss of limb, life, or quality
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5135-2002 (O&M) -4-
of life, the compensation must be ‘Just’, meaning thereby, that it should be fair,
reasonable, and equitable based on the evidence and not merely a ‘Windfall’ or a
‘Pittance’. The core objective is to put the injured/victim in the same position he
would have been if the accident had not taken place, to the extent money can do
so. This approach ensures that the law provides a realistic recompense for the
trauma endured, rather than just providing normal relief.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 934 -
G.Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and another , has held that in
a case of accident resulting in injuries to the victim, the compensation in personal
injury cases should be determined under the following heads:-
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing expenditure, food and miscellaneous
(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 under
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5135-2002 (O&M) -5-
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.
11. As per version of claimant, who appeared as PW5, he had suffered
multiple injuries in the accident in question. He was taken to Civil Hospital,
Sonipat from where he was referred to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, New Delhi
where he remained admitted upto 10.10.1998. Two fractures were detected in his
left leg which was operated upon and nails were inserted in two wounds. He could
not recover in the said hospital and thereafter, he was got admitted in Sehrawat
Hospital, Sonipat, where he remained admitted upto 24.12.1998. He was again
admitted in Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, New Delhi where a bone was removed
from his right femur and was inserted in his left leg for his early recovery and he
was discharged from the hospital on 31.12.1998. Thereafter, he used to visit the
hospital for follow-up treatment. In June 1999, another surgery was performed in
Maharaja Aggarsain, Hospital, New Delhi, where he remained admitted for 7-8
days. Thereafter, he was admitted in City Hospital, Karnal, where he remained
admitted for 40 days in January, 2000 and he was again taken to Sir Ganga Ram
Hospital, New Delhi for his treatment where a fixator was affixed for his early
recovery. During this period, he engaged an attendant, spent huge amount on his
treatment, transportation and on special diet. He also engaged a pharmacist to run
his chemist shop at the salary of Rs.5,000/- and he has suffered permanent
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5135-2002 (O&M) -6-
disability to the extent of 60% as his leg has shortened by two inches. He was
unmarried and his marriage prospects have become bleak. Learned Tribunal after
going through the evidence on file awarded him total compensation of
Rs.4,71,000/- under following heads:-
S.No. Head Amount
1. Expenses incurred by the claimant towards
purchase of the medicines and towards payment
of bills pertaining to the various hospitals
Rs.1,50,000/-
2. Compensation towards the salary paid to the Rs.40,000/-
Pharmacist from Oct.1998 to February, 2000.
3. Salary paid to the attendant from October, 1998 Rs.16,000/-
to Feb.2000 @Rs.1000/- per month
4. Pain and suffering Rs.2,50,000/-
5. Transportation expenses @ Rs300/- per visit for Rs.15,000/-
50 visits to Delhi from Sonipat
Total Rs.4,71,000/-
12. To prove the injuries, claimant has examined PW4 Dr. V.K.
Sawhney, Consultant Orthopaedician, Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, Punjabi
Bagh, New Delhi, who deposed that claimant was admitted in his hospital on
29.09.1998 with multiple injuries. He had suffered fracture of femur and fracture
of tibia with crushed injuries of leg and knee. He was again admitted in the
hospital on 24.12.1998 and discharged on 28.12.1998. The Tribunal has observed
that when claimant was admitted in the said hospital where he was operated upon
and nails were firstly inserted in two bones of left leg and thereafter one bone was
removed from the right femur and inserted in his left leg for his early recovery.
Claimant has also examined PW3 Dr. Rakesh Mahajan, Consultant Orthopaedic
Surgeon, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, who deposed that claimant was
admitted in their hospital on 23.01.2000 with infected non-union fracture shaft
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5135-2002 (O&M) -7-
femur and fracture tibia left. He was operated upon for sequestretomy tibia with
removal of femoral nail with ilizarov fixation and he was discharged on
28.01.2000. In addition to this, claimant was again operated upon at Ram Lal
Kundan Lal Orthopedic Hospital on 06.02.2000 where a sum of Rs.5,475/- was
paid vide bill Ex.P5. He was again treated in the same hospital on 16.03.2000 and
amount of Rs.1,525/- was paid vide bill Ex.P6.
13. PW2 Dr. S.S. Bhogal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sonipat has
also been examined, who deposed that on 31.05.2000, he was member of the
board of doctors and they had examined the claimant, who was 24 years of age
and he was found to be suffering from disability to the extent of 60% on account
of post traumatic stiffness left knee, left ankle and shortening of leg by two inches
and he tendered the disability certificate Ex.P2.
14. As such, from the evidence led on file, it is established that claimant
had suffered grievous injuries and he was operated upon on several occasions.
Two fractures were detected in his left leg and nails were initially inserted in two
bones and thereafter, a bone was removed from his right femur and inserted in his
left leg for his early recovery. He was treated in various hospitals and remained
under treatment for about 16 months. A fixator was also affixed in Maharaja
Aggarsain Hospital, New Delhi and thereafter, he was found to have suffered 60%
permanent disability with shortening of left leg by two inches. It is a matter of
common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous which take
a considerable time to heal and taking into consideration, the severity of injuries
suffered by the claimant and subsequent surgical interventions, claimant is held
entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’ .
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5135-2002 (O&M) -8-
15. As per version of claimant, he was running his own chemist shop in
Sehrawat Hospital, Sonipat and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. However, no
cogent and convincing evidence has been led on file to establish this fact and no
income tax return has been filed. As such, the version of claimant that he used to
earn Rs.15,000/- per month cannot be believed. However, some amount of
guesswork has to be applied while assessing the income of the claimant and since
the accident took place on 28.09.1998, it can be assumed that he must be earning
at least Rs.5,000/- per month. Accordingly, the income of claimant is taken as
Rs.5,000/- per month .
16. Since, claimant was 24 years of age on the date of the accident, 40%
amount has to be added to his monthly income towards future prospects in view of
the law laid down in Sanjay Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s case
(supra) , which brings his income to Rs.7,000/- per month ( Rs.5,000/- +
Rs.2,000/- ). However, in view of the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant
and the fact that he has suffered 60% permanent disability and there is shortening
of leg by two inches, he will not be able to run his business in the same manner as
he was running earlier. He will not be able to stand for a long period to supply
medicines to the customers and will also not be in a position to visit various places
to purchase medicines and for this, he shall have to engage the services of an
attendant/employee in future to assist him. As such, the disability suffered by the
claimant will certainly diminish his earning capability and the functional disability
of the claimant is accordingly assessed at 40%. The compensation under the head
‘loss of income’ thus has to be assessed keeping in view the percentage by which
his earning capability has been diminished and by applying a suitable multiplier in
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5135-2002 (O&M) -9-
view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010(4) PLR 242 Yadava
Kumar Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited.
Since, claimant has suffered 40% funtional disability, the monthly loss of income
will thus come to Rs.2,800/- ( Rs.7,000/- × 40% ) and the annual loss of income
will come to Rs.33,600/- per annum (Rs.2,800 × 12) and in view of law laid
down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the
multiplier of 18 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.6,04,800/-
(Rs.33,600/- × 18) on account of ‘ loss of income ’ due to permanent disability .
17. Learned Tribunal has awarded him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for the
expenses incurred on treatment. However, it is a matter of common knowledge
that patients or their attendants do not preserve all the bills, including those
relating to physiotherapy and allied treatment and some amount of guesswork has
to be applied while assessing the ‘expenses incurred on treatment’. A ccordingly,
claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of
expenses incurred on treatment and for future treatment .
18. Claimant has also been awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- for engaging a
pharmacist to run his chemist shop for the period Oct 1998 to February 2000 i.e.
for about 17 months. However, the compensation under this head is not adequate.
Even a labourer used to earn around Rs.2,700/- per month during this period and a
pharmacist cannot be termed as a labourer and some amount of guesswork has to
be applied while awarding compensation for engaging the services of a pharmacist
to run the shop during this period. It can be assumed that claimant must have
engaged a pharmacist at a salary of Rs.3,500/- per month and accordingly, he is
held entitled to a sum of Rs.59,500/- (Rs.3,500/- x 17) for ‘engaging a
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5135-2002 (O&M) -10-
pharmacist during the period of treatment to run his shop’.
19. A sum of Rs.16,000/- has been awarded to the claimant for engaging
an attendant @ Rs.1,000/- per month which is also inadequate. Accordingly, he is
held entitled to a sum of Rs.25,500/-(Rs.1,500/- x 17) for ‘engaging an
attendant’.
20. Claimant has been awarded expenses incurred on transportation to the
extent of Rs.15,000/- for going to Delhi on 50 occasions @ 300 per visit which
again is grossly inadequate. Claimant must have engaged some vehicle for going
to Delhi for his treatment and he had even gone to City Hospital at Karnal where
he was operated upon and he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/-
for the ‘expenses incurred on transportation’.
21. During this period of 17 months, claimant must have spent huge
amount on special diet. Accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- for
special diet.
22. The claimant was 24 years of age at the time of the accident and has
suffered 60% disability with stiffness of the left knee and ankle and shortening of
the left leg by two inches. The disability suffered by him is permanent and will
adversely affect his normal life including his ability to walk, run, sit and lift
weight besides adversely affecting his marriage prospects . Considering the nature
and extent of disability, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the heads
of ‘loss of amenities of life i.e. discomfort, inconvenience, hardship and loss of
expectancy of life ’ and ‘loss of marriage prospects’.
23. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimant is
assessed as under:-
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5135-2002 (O&M) -11-
Compensation Assessed
Sr. No. Head of Compensation
by this Court
1 Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/-
Expenses incurred on treatment and for
2 Rs.2,00,000/-
future treatment
For engaging a pharmacist during
3 Rs.59,500/-
treatment
4 Attendant charges Rs.25,500/-
5 Special diet Rs.25,000/-
6 Transportation charges Rs.25,000/-
Loss of future income due to
Rs.6,04,800/-
7
permanent disability
Loss of amenities in life and marriage
8 Rs.50,000/-
prospects
₹
Total 10,89,800/
24. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and
claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,89,800/- as compensation. The
enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.6,18,800/- (Rs.10,89,800/- –
Rs.4,71,000/-) (rounded off to Rs.6,19,000/-) over and above the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition i.e. 24.07.2000, till realization, payable by
respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally.
25. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
JUDGE
09.09.2026
Priyanka Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No

PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.11 16:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document