Ravinder Singh vs State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116 FAO No.5175 of 2002 (O&M)
Date of decision : 12.11.2026
RAVINDER SINGH …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: None for appellant.
Mr. Paramjeet Singh, D.A.G., Haryana.
*
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
Notices issued to appellant were received back unserved with
report that no person of this name is residing at the given address.
2. Thereafter notices were also issued to Mr. Ashish Handa,
learned counsel for appellant through e-mail and again no representation has
been made on behalf of appellant.
3. Since in present appeal, appellant has sought enhancement of
compensation, it would be appropriate to decide the same without assistance
of learned counsel for appellant.
4. Present appeal has been preferred by appellant-claimant seeking
enhancement in compensation awarded vide award dated 03.04.2002 passed
by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter
referred to as ‘ Tribunal ’), whereby appellant-claimant was awarded total
compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in
motor vehicular accident dated 20.03.1999 allegedly caused due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent-driver while driving truck bearing
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5175 of 2002 -2-
registration No.HR-03-7939 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ offending vehicle ’).
5. Since in the present appeal the only issue raised by the
appellants-claimants 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.
6. In the present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following
compensation to appellant-claimant:
Medical expenses Rs.20,000/-
Pain and sufferings Rs.35,000/-
Compensation for
Rs.50,000/-
disability
Loss of income during
Rs.19,600/-
treatment
(Rs.2,800/-X7)
Special diet and
Rs.10,000/-
conveyance charges
Total compensation Rs.1,35,000/-
(rounded off)
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has sought
enhancement of compensation on the following grounds:
●
Learned Tribunal had erred in not granting
compensation on the basis of functional disability (as
permanent disability is 9%);
●
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-
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5175 of 2002 -3-
claimant 28 years of age at the time of accident.
●
Multiplier was not applied by learned Tribunal;
●
Compensation for loss of future prospects and future
amenities and for future medical expenses has not been
granted to which appellant-claimant is entitled to; and
●
Enhancement of compensation for pain and sufferings,
medical expenses, special diet, transportation and
attendant charges etc. and for loss of income during
treatment, is warranted being insufficient in view of
nature of injuries, nature of treatment and period of
hospitalisation.
8. It is case of appellant-claimant that he had sustained grievous
injuries including disfigurement of his face, limbs and permanent scars all
over his body. That appellant-claimant had suffered loss of two upper teeth,
two lower teeth, stitches on forehead as well as fracture of left leg on
account of accident.
9. In order to prove nature of injuries, nature of treatment,
expenses incurred on treatment, period of hospitlization and extent of
permanent disability, appellant-claimant had placed reliance upon evidence
of Dr. Ramesh Sen, Assistant Professor at PGIMER, Chandigarh who
appeared as PW1 and stated that appellant-claimant was examined by him
on 20.03.1999 at 08:26 p.m. PW1 also stated that appellant-claimant had
suffered head injuries as well as fracture femur left side. PW1 further stated
that he operated appellant-claimant for open reduction and internal fixation
with inter-locked nail on 12.04.1999 and appellant-claimant was discharged
from hospital on 15.04.1999 with advice of OPD follow-up.
10. Appellant-claimant while appearing as PW2 had reiterated the
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5175 of 2002 -4-
nature of injuries and nature of treatment undergone by him as was stated by
him in claim petition. Appellant-claimant duly asserted to have lost 04 teeth
and suffered other injuries including disfigurement of his face. He also
claimed to have spent Rs.3,00,000/- on his treatment and had relied upon
medicine/hospital bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C39 and Ex.C44 to Ex.C63.
11. From the evidence lead by appellant-claimant, it is duly proved
on record that appellant-claimant had sustained multiple injuries including
fracture of femur left side, remained admitted in PGIMER, Chandigarh from
20.03.1999 to 15.03.1999 as made out from statement of PW1 and discharge
card (Ex.C1). From the records, it is clearly made out that appellant-claimant
had undergone surgery, however loss of teeth as claimed by appellant-
claimant could not be established either from the evidence of doctor or from
the medical records.
12. Learned Tribunal had taken into consideration all the bills
placed by appellant-claimant on record and had concluded that from the bills
(Ex.C3 to Ex.C39 and Ex.C44 to Ex.C63), amount of Rs.19,452/- alone was
spent by appellant-claimant and had awarded Rs.20,000/- on this account.
On consideration, I find that as far as medical reimbursement is concerned,
learned Tribunal had rightly granted all the bills, which were proved.
Learned Tribunal however had not awarded any compensation for expenses
incurred on attendant. In present case, admittedly, appellant-claimant had
remained admitted in hospital from 20.03.1999 to 15.04.1999 for 26 days.
This fact goes to show that appellant-claimant must have spent some amount
on special diet during his treatment as well as for making recovery after his
discharge from hospital and also on transportation and attendant, therefore,
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5175 of 2002 -5-
in the facts and circumstances of the case, he is entitled to Rs.40,000/ -
towards medical expenses, transportation, special diet and attendant
charges etc .
13. Appellant-claimant had remained in hospital for 26 days from
20.03.1999 to 15.04.1999 and must have also remained bed-ridden for
recovery of fracture femur left side, therefore must have undergone immense
pain and sufferings due to injuries suffered by him in accident. Accordingly,
compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded by learned Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings .
14. From the fact that appellant-claimant had suffered head injuries
as well as fracture femur left side, it is clearly made out that he must have
taken at least 07 months to recover from the said injuries, therefore,
appellant-claimant must have lost his earnings for said period. Appellant-
claimant was employed with Punch Auto, Panchkula and was earning
Rs.2,800/- per month as was correctly taken by learned Tribunal.
Accordingly, in view of document Ex.C42 relied upon by appellant-
claimant, compensation of Rs.19,600/- for loss of income during treatment
so awarded by learned Tribunal is upheld.
15. Appellant-claimant had also claimed that he had suffered loss of
teeth and permanent disability on account of injuries suffered by him. In
order to prove permanent disability, appellant-claimant had relied upon
disability certificate (Ex.C40) issued by Board of PGIMER, Chandigarh,
wherein permanent disability was certified to the extent of 9% qua whole
body. In view of disability certificate (Ex.C40), it is clearly made out that
appellant-claimant would definitely have suffered loss of future amenities of
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5175 of 2002 -6-
life and loss of future prospects of life. Accordingly, appellant-claimant is
granted Rs.75,000/- towards loss of future prospects and future amenities
of life .
16. Admittedly, appellant-claimant was employed with Punch Auto,
Panchkula and was a diploma holder in mechanical field, therefore, nature of
job clearly goes to show that appellant-claimant would have suffered loss of
income on account of permanent disability. In order to calculate loss of
earning capacity, functional disability has to be determined keeping in view
nature of work, which appellant-claimant was undertaking. Accordingly,
functional disability to the extent of 9% is taken for determining loss of
earning capacity. Appellant-claimant had claimed to be 28 years old at the
time of accident, which fact had gone unrebutted, therefore, future prospects
to the extent of 40% needs to be added in view of mandate of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
and Ors. , 2017 (16) SCC 680 and multiplier of ‘17’ shall be applicable as
per judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma &
Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. , 2009(6) SCC 121.
17. Accordingly, loss of earning capacity payable to injured-
appellant-claimant has to be determined by taking functional disability
equivalent to 9% after taking monthly income of the injured to be
Rs.2,800/- , by adding future prospects to the extent of 40 % and by
applying multiplier of ‘ 17 ’. No future medical expenses are payable in
absence of any evidence in this regard.
18. Re-worked compensation payable to appellant-claimant is as
under:-
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5175 of 2002 -7-
Income Rs.2,800/-
Rs.2,800/-
per month
per month
Future prospects 40%
Rs.3,920/-
(2,800+1,120)
9% Permanent
9% of Rs.3,920/- Rs.353/-
disability
Multiplier 17 17
Total loss of earning
Rs.353/-X17X12 Rs.72,012/-
capacity
Loss of income
Rs.19,600/-
Rs.19,600/-
during treatment
(by Tribunal)
Compensation for
Rs.20,000/-
Rs.40,000/-
medical expenses,
(by Tribunal for medical
transportation,
expenses)
special diet and
attendant charges
Compensation for
Rs.35,000/- Rs.50,000/-
pain and sufferings
Compensation for
Rs.75,000/-
loss of future
prospects and future
amenities of life
Total compensation
Rs.1,35,000/-
awarded by the
Tribunal
Total compensation
Rs.2,56,612/-
awarded in appeal
Enhanced
Rs.2,56,612/-
Rs.1,21,612/-
compensation
(awarded in appeal)
-
Rs.1,35,000/-
(awarded by Tribunal)
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.11.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO No.5175 of 2002 -8-
19. Appellant-claimant shall also be entitled to interest over en-
hanced 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.
20. Present a ppeal is allowed in above terms.
21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of accordingly .
(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