Ramesh Sharma vs Vishal Mandal

1
FAO-2103-2003 - -
232 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-2103-2003
Date of Decision: 31.08.2026
RAMESH SHARMA
......... APPELLANT

VERSUS
VISHAL MANDAL AND ORS
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Notice to respondents No.1 and 2 dispensed with.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)
1. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the record of
the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the
High Court Registry and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis
of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned
award.
2. In the present case, all the respondents i.e. driver, owner and
insurer of offending Maruti Car No.PCF-3399 have been held liable to
pay compensation to the claimant jointly and severally. Insurance
Company is already represented by its counsel and as such, there is no
necessity to issue notice to the driver (respondent No.1) and owner
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.02 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
FAO-2103-2003 - -
(respondent No.2) and issuance of notice to respondents No.1 and 2
stands dispensed with.
3. This appeal has been instituted by the claimant/appellant for
enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 14.02.2003 passed
by MACT, Ludhiana ( for short “Tribunal” ) in MACT Case No.7 of
20.04.2001 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
( for short ‘Act’ ) vide which a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded as
compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum due to
injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident which took place on
27.03.2000 on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of
respondent No.1 while driving Maruti Car bearing No.PCF-3399 ( for
short ‘offending vehicle’ ), owned by respondent No.2 and insured with
respondent No.3.
4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed
by the learned Tribunal:-
“1. Whether Mrs. Ramesh Sharma claimant suffered
injuries in motor vehicular accident which took place
on 27.3.2000 at about 2.30 A.M. in the area of Char
Khamba Chowk Model Town Ldh. due to rash and
negligent driving of Car No.PCF-3399 by Vishal
Mandal respondent No.1” OPA
2. Whether petitioner/claimant is entitled to recover any
compensation, if so the amount and from whom? OPA
3. Whether petition is not maintainable? OPR
4. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR3
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.02 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
FAO-2103-2003 - -
5. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties? OPR-3
6. Whether violation of terms and conditions of insurance
policy have taken place, if so, its effect? OPR-3
7. Relief.”
5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.
6. After hearing the parties and going through the material on
the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation
to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by her 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
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred.
The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.
8. The only issue required to be determined in the present
appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire
facts of the case 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, owned by
respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. No appeal or cross-
objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding
and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with
and the same is affirmed.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal
has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.02 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
FAO-2103-2003 - -
perspective while awarding the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- which is
grossly inadequate. The compensation has not been awarded under the
pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads as per settled law and the
compensation is thus liable to be enhanced. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel 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, 2017 (16) SCC 680
National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other .
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3
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.
11. 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 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
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.02 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
FAO-2103-2003 - -
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.
12. 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 food and miscellaneous expenditure.
(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).
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.02 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
FAO-2103-2003 - -
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.
ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION
13. The present claim petition has been filed by the claimant for
seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by her in the
accident in question. As per her version, she had suffered grievous injuries
and has become permanently disabled to the extent of 38% in relation to
her left limb. To prove the injuries and the disability suffered by her,
claimant has examined PW7 Dr. Amit Modi, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Civil
Hospital, Ludhiana who deposed that claimant had suffered permanent
disability to the extent of 38% in her left limb. She was an operative case
of fracture femur (interlocking nailing) with restrictive movement of hip
and left knee and he tendered disability certificate Ex.PW7/1. The
treatment record has not been led in evidence but from the statement of
PW7, it is established that claimant had suffered grievous injuries for
which she was operated upon and implant was inserted. It is a matter of
common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and
such injuries take a long time to heal particularly due to surgical
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.02 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
FAO-2103-2003 - -
interventions. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to her for
‘pain and sufferings’, which is grossly inadequate. Therefore, taking into
consideration the severity of injuries suffered by the claimant, she is held
entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- for ‘ pain and sufferings ’.
14. As per version of claimant, she was hale and hearty prior to
the accident and she used to work with one Warehouse Company, namely,
Quantum Corporation, California, USA and she was earning $450 per
week and she placed on file her salary certificate Mark-D. However, the
salary certificate has not been proved in accordance with law and it even
does not bear the signatures of the official who had issued it and therefore,
the Tribunal has rightly discarded the same. However, this Court cannot
lose sight of the fact that claimant was residing in USA and had come to
India when she met with the accident in question and some amount of
guesswork thus has to be applied while assessing her income as per price
index prevailing in India. She is also a homemaker and must have been
rendering gratuitous services towards her family and accordingly, for the
purpose of assessment of compensation, her income is assessed as
Rs.12,000/- per month and it can be assumed that she must have been
earning this much amount in the year 2000 when the accident took place.
15. Since, claimant was 51 years of age on the date of accident,
10% amount has to be added to her monthly income towards future
prospects in view of law laid down in Sanjay Verma’s case (supra) and
Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and after adding the same, her monthly
income comes out to Rs.13,200/- (Rs.12,000/- + Rs.1,200/-) .
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.02 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
FAO-2103-2003 - -
16. Claimant has suffered 38% disability in relation to her left
limb and there is restricted movement of hip and left knee which will
certainly diminish her earning capability and learned Tribunal has
awarded her a sum of Rs.50,000/- in lumpsum. However, the disability
pertains to a particular limb and the same is not qua the whole body and
accordingly, the functional disability is taken as 20%. The claimant was
51 years of age and a homemaker and she will have to remain with this
disability throughout her life which will certainly diminish her earning
capabilities and the avocation or profession she will pursue. The
compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ thus has to be assessed
keeping in view the percentage by which her earning capability has
diminished and by applying a suitable multiplier in 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 permanent disability to the extent of 20%, the
monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.2,640/- (Rs.13,200/- X 20%)
and annual loss of income will come out to Rs.31,680/- per annum
(Rs.2,640/- X 12) and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case
and the multiplier of 11 has to be
(supra) Sarla Verma’s case (supra),
applied which takes the compensation to Rs.3,48,480/- (Rs.31,680/- X 11)
on account of ‘ loss of income ’ due to permanent disability as against
Rs.50,000/- awarded in lumpsum by the Tribunal.
17. Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for ‘loss of
amenities’ as she will not be able to walk, run and climb stairs as she used
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.02 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

9
FAO-2103-2003 - -
to do prior to the accident. In addition to this, a sum of Rs.15,000/- has
been awarded for loss of expectation of life and for inconvenience,
hardship, disappointment, frustration etc. another sum of Rs.10,000/- has
been awarded and in all, she has been awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- under
all these three heads, which is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- .
18. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- for the ‘expenses
incurred on treatment’ and out of this amount, she has led in evidence the
bills worth Rs.72,475/- vide Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/13 which have been
proved by PW5 P.K. Sharma, Accountant and PW2 Om Parkash,
Supervisor/Cashier D.M.C. and Hospital, Ludhiana has proved bill Ex.P1
while PW3 Hardial Singh Grewal, Office Superintendent Shri Guru Teg
Bahadur Hospital, Ludhiana has proved bill worth Rs.6,620/-. Claimant
has also claimed to have spent Rs.2,00,000/- on her treatment in Indian
currency in the US vide bills Mark A1 to Mark A6 but the Tribunal has
not taken into consideration these bills on the ground that the same have
not been proved. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that
proceedings before the Tribunal are of summary nature. If there is some
evidence before a Tribunal, in order to prove a fact, then no unnecessary
doubt or suspicion should weigh with it in deciding the claim case. The
provisions of Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to such summary
proceedings and the probative value of the documents should not be
suspected without any reasonable cause as the assessment of
compensation involves some amount of guess work, hypothesis,
consideration and sympathy of the Tribunal, as held in 1995 ACJ 366
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.02 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

10
FAO-2103-2003 - -
(SC), titled R.D Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Reference can also be made to 1990 ACJ 127, titled National Insurance
.
Co. Vs. Saloni Dargan and Others Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2019
ACJ 454 Vimla Devi and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. has
held that “At the outset, we may reiterate as has been consistently said by
this Court in a series of cases that the Act is a beneficial piece of
legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of motor accidents who
suffer bodily injury or die untimely. The Act is designed in a manner
which relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in
law, which are otherwise applicable to the suits and other proceedings
while prosecuting the claim petitions filed under the Act for claiming
compensation for the loss sustained by them in the accident”.
19. It can be assumed that claimant must have spent some
amount on treatment even after returning to USA and accordingly,
claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for the expenses
incurred on her treatment in India as well as in USA.
20. Claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for cost of
nursing and in engaging an attendant which too is grossly inadequate. It
must have taken at least four months for the injuries to heal during which
period claimant must have spent some amount on ‘nursing’ and in
‘engaging an attendant’ and compensation under both these heads is
enhanced to Rs.20,000/- . Besides this, claimant must have spent some
amount on transportation and she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/-
for ‘ expenses incurred on transportation ’.
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.02 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

11
FAO-2103-2003 - -
21. Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for ‘loss of income’ as
claimant would not have been able to do any work during the period of
illness which does not call for any further enhancement.
22. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimant
by this Court is assessed as under:-
Sr. No. Head of Compensation Amount Awarded
(₹)
1. Pain and sufferings 30,000/-
2. Loss of income due to permanent dis-
3,48,480/-
ability
3. loss of amenities, loss of expectation
of life, inconvenience, hardship, dis-
appointment, frustration etc.
50,000/-
4. Expenses incurred on treatment 1,25,000/-
5. Nursing and Engaging an attendant 20,000/-
6. Transportation charges 10,000/-
7. Loss of income during treatment 10,000/-
Total Compensation 5,93,480/-
(rounded off to
Rs.5,93,500/-)
Interest 9%
23. As a result of afore-said discussion, the present appeal is
partly accepted with costs and the claimant is held entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.3,93,500/- ( Rs.5,93,500/- - Rs.2,00,000/- ) 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. 20.04.2001, till realization.
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.02 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

12
FAO-2103-2003 - -
24. 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 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.
25. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
JUDGE
31.08.2026
Vishal Vardhan
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
VISHAL VARDHAN
2026.09.02 19:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document