Sukh Ram vs Ram Kishan

FAO-580 of 2002 (O&M) -1-

210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-580 of 2002 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.08.2026

Sukh Ram ......... Appellant

Versus
Ram Kishan .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Ms. Ankita Gupta, Amicus Curiae, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Jasleen Chhibber, Advocate and Mr. Nitin Gupta,
Advocate for respondent No.3 – Insurance Company.
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)
1. As requested by learned counsel for the appellant, the file is
taken up post lunch session.
2. This appeal has been instituted for enhancement of
compensation against the Award dated 19.10.2001 passed by MACT,
Faridabad ( for short “Tribunal” ) in MVA Case No.138/8.1.1999/
28.2.2001 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
vide which a sum of Rs.2,65,654/- has been awarded as compensation to
the claimant along with interest 9% per annum on account of injuries
suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent
driving by respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle No.HR-
RENU
2026.09.01 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-580 of 2002 (O&M) -2-
29/9246 ( for short ‘offending vehicle’ ), owned by respondent No.2,
which was insured with respondent No.3.
3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed
by the learned Tribunal:-
“1. Whether the accident in question resulting into
injuries to the petitioner Sukh Ram was caused on
account of rash/negligent driving of truck No.HR-
29/9246 by respondent No.1 Ram Kishan?OPP.
2. In case issue no.1 is proved to what amount of
compensation the petitioner is entitled for and from
whom?OPP.
3. Whether the respondent no.1 had no valid driving
licence at the time of this accident. If so to what
effect?OPR-3
4. Relief.”
4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on
the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,65,654/- as
compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him
along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till realization, payable by respondent No.1 to 3 jointly and
severally.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred.
The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.
7. 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
RENU
2026.09.01 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-580 of 2002 (O&M) -3-
reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.1
that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent
driving on the part of respondent No.1, who was driver of the offending
vehicle and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. No appeal or
cross-objections have been filed by respondents No.1 and 2, challenging
the said finding and accordingly, finding on issue No.1 is not required to
be interfered with and the same is affirmed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 compensation has not been awarded for the pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damages as per settled law and the compensation
awarded vide impugned award is thus liable to be enhanced.
9. 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.
10. 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,
RENU
2026.09.01 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-580 of 2002 (O&M) -4-
life, or quality 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.
11. 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.
RENU
2026.09.01 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-580 of 2002 (O&M) -5-
(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 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.
12. As per version of claimant, he had suffered grievous injuries
in the accident and his both legs had got crushed in the accident in
question. To prove the injuries, claimant has examined PW1- Dr. K.D.
Soni, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Escorts Hospital, Faridabad, who deposed
that he had examined claimant- Sukh Ram. The patient was operated
upon for fractures in his both legs and nailing of tibia was done. Patient
was operated upon on 5.11.1998 and discharged on 2.12.1998 and he
tendered the discharge summary Ex.P1. He further stated that patient
was directed to follow up his treatment in the OPD. He also proved the
cash receipt of OPD Ex.P2 to Ex.P6. He further stated that another sum
of Rs.10,000/- is likely to be incurred on surgery in future besides
medical expenses of Rs.2,000/-.
13. Gagandeep, Record Keeper PW3 proved final bill Ex.P8
issued by the hospital vide which a sum of Rs.61,498/- was charged from
the claimant. PW4 Sonu, salesman of M/s Popular Chemists and
RENU
2026.09.01 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-580 of 2002 (O&M) -6-
Druggist, Escorts Hospital, Faridabad, also proved bills Ex.P9 to Ex.P37
vide which medicines were sold to the claimant. PW5, Parkash Gupta,
Proprietor M/s Parkash Medicos also proved cash memos Ex.P38 to
Ex.P72 vide which medicines were sold purchased by the claimant.
PW6, Rahul, Salesman has proved bill Ex.P73. The claimant while
appearing as PW10 stated that he had spent Rs.1,50,000/- on his
treatment. The total of the bills tendered in evidence by the claimant
came out to Rs.99,494/- and Tribunal awarded the afore-said amount as
compensation for the expenses incurred on treatment. However, it is a
matter of common knowledge that patients or their attendants generally
do not preserve all the bills and some amount of guess work thus has to
be applied while assessing the compensation for the expenses incurred on
treatment and accordingly claimant is held entitled to a sum of
Rs.1,20,000/- for the expenses incurred on his treatment .
14. It must have taken at least four months for the injuries to
heal and during this period, claimant would not have been able to do any
work. Accident had taken place in the year 1998 and claimant was
employed as Senior Inspector, Quality Control, Escorts Limited
Faridabad and was earning Rs.8,145/- per month. While appearing as
PW10, he stated that he was earning Rs.13,000/- per month and he also
used to get Rs.200/- or Rs.250/- per month as his duty was outside for
inspection work and in addition to this, he also used to get bonus of
Rs.6,000/- per annum. PW7 S.K. Sharma, Personal Officer, Escorts
Construction Equipment Ltd. produced his salary certificate Ex.P73,
RENU
2026.09.01 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-580 of 2002 (O&M) -7-
according to which, claimant was drawing Rs.13,080/- as salary per
month besides bonus. He also stated that claimant was also being paid
bonus @ 20% per annum. He remained on leave without pay from
28.10.1998 to 8.7.1999 and he tendered the certificate in this regard.
However, Tribunal took his salary to be Rs.8,145/- per month as per his
own deposition and he was awarded Rs.65,150/- towards loss of salary
for the period he remained under treatment. Since claimant himself
alleged his monthly salary to be Rs.8,145/-, Tribunal thus rightly awarded
him compensation of Rs.65,150/- for loss of income during the period
of treatment. Claimant has also been awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- for
loss of bonus during the period of treatment and no enhancement in
the same is called for.
15. During the period of treatment, he must have spent some
amount on nutritious diet, transportation and in engaging an attendant.
Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- for
nutritious diet, Rs.20,000/-for engaging an attendant and Rs.7,500/-
for the expenses incurred on transportation and the total amount
comes out to Rs.42,500/- .
16. The claimant has suffered crush injuries and his both the legs
were crushed and he was operated upon and implant was inserted. It is a
matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is
enormous which take a considerable time to heal. Therefore, taking into
consideration the severity of injuries and the surgical interventions, the
claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- for pain and sufferings
RENU
2026.09.01 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-580 of 2002 (O&M) -8-
as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
17. To prove disability, claimant has examined Dr. Harish
Piplani who deposed that on 22.11.2000, he along with other members of
the Board had assessed the disability of the claimant vide disability
certificate Ex.P93/1 and claimant was found to have suffered 30%
disability. Tribunal has awarded him a sum of Rs.45,000/- on account of
disability suffered by him. However, the compensation for the disability
suffered by him is grossly inadequate. No doubt, claimant was in service
and the disability suffered by him will not diminish his earning
capabilities but he was in field job and had to visit various places in
connection with his job. This disability is going to remain with him
throughout his life and accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of
Rs.75,000/- as compensation on account of permanent disability as
against Rs.45,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
18. The disability suffered by him is to the extent of 30%. He
had suffered grievous injuries in the accident and his both legs had got
crushed in the accident in question and implant was inserted. This
disability will impact his routine activities in his day to day life and he
will not be able to lead a normal life. Accordingly, he is held entitled to a
sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of amenities i.e. discomfort,
inconvenience, hardship and loss of expectancy of life.
19. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded to claimant is
assessed as under:-
RENU
2026.09.01 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-580 of 2002 (O&M) -9-
Sr. No. Head This Court (₹)
1. Rs.1,20,000/-
Expenses incurred on
treatment
2. Loss of income during the
Rs.65,150/-
period of treatment
3.
Loss of bonus during the
Rs.12,000/-
period of treatment
Rs.42,500/-
(Rs.15,000/- + Rs.20,000/- +
Rs.7,500/-).
4. Expenses incurred on nu-
tritious diet, for engaging
an attendant and on trans-
portation
5. Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/-

Compensation on account Rs.75,000/-
of permanent disability
Rs. /-
5. Loss of Amenities 20,000
Total Rs.3,84,650/-

Interest 9%
20. As a result of afore-said discussion, the present appeal is
partly allowed with costs and the claimant is held entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,18,996/- (Rounded off to Rs.1,19,000/-)
(Rs.3,84,650/- - Rs.2,65,654/-) over and above the compensation
awarded by Tribunal, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and
severally, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of
claim petition i.e. 9.10.2001, till realization.
21. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the
judgment to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions
issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of
2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union
RENU
2026.09.01 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-580 of 2002 (O&M) -10-
of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company
shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said
judgment.
22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
JUDGE
31.08.2026
renu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
RENU
2026.09.01 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document