Kulwant Rai vs Kuldeep Singh Andors

-1-
121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-5374-2003 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.11.2026
KULWANT RAI ...Appellant
Versus
KULDEEP SINGH AND ANR ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GO7YAL
Present: Mr. Svamin Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Utsav Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.2/insurance company.
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
Present appeal has been preferred by appellant-claimant seeking
enhancement in compensation awarded vide award dated 04.06.2003, passed
by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as
‘ Tribunal ’) on account of injuries sustained by him in motor vehicular
accident dated 25.05.2000, allegedly caused due to rash and negligent
driving of respondent-driver while driving Tata Sumo bearing registration
No.HR-22B-1505 (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
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.11.13 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5374-2003 -2-
for the sake of brevity.
3. In the present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following
compensation to appellant-claimant:
Medical expenses Rs.26,900/-
Pain and sufferings Rs.5,000/-
Loss of income due to disability Rs.32,000/-
Total Rs.72,000/-
4. Learned c ounsel for injured-claimant-appellant 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 8%);
•
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 26 years of
age at the time of accident;
•
Appropriate multiplier was not applied by learned Tribunal;
•
Compensation for 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 for pain and sufferings, medical
expenses, special diet, transportation and attendant charges etc.
is warranted being insufficient in view of nature of injuries,
nature of treatment and period of hospitalisation.
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.11.13 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5374-2003 -3-
5. It is the case of appellant/claimant that on 25.05.2000 the
appellant- claimant along with his wife was travelling from bus stand of
Sikanderpur to village Rampura in jeep bearing registration no. HR-24-D-
3130. While the appellant-claimant was getting down from Jeep No.HR-
24D-3130, he was knocked down by offending vehicle and on account of
said hit, he had suffered multiple and grievous injuries resulting into
permanent disability.
6. In order to prove nature of injuries, period of hospitalization,
nature and extent of permanent disability and expenses incurred upon
hospital and medical bills by the appellant/claimant, appellant/claimant has
relied upon PW2 Dr. M.K. Soni. PW2 had duly asserted that
appellant/claimant had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of both
bones of left leg. He stated to have operated upon the appellant-claimant on
27.05.2000 and close inter-lock nailing was done. He also asserted to have
operated upon the appellant-claimant on two occasions and had charged him
Rs.20,600/- on account of hospital bills, implant, medicines, x–ray charges
including operation charges. Rs.4,800/- was charged on account of second
operation. Bill is ExP5. Further an amount of Rs.650/- was charged on
22.03.2001 vide bill ExP6. Medical bills for purchase of medicines were
also placed on record by appellant/claimant as Mark A to Mark U showing
total expenditure of Rs.900/-. Appellant/claimant had further relied upon
evidence of PW3 Dr. Joginder Singh as well as disability certificate Ex.P7 to
plead and prove permanent disability suffered by him on account of injuries
suffered in the accident. From evidence of PW3 as well as disability
certificate (Ex.P7) it is clearly made out that appellant/claimant had suffered
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.11.13 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5374-2003 -4-
permanent disability to the extent of 8%. The functional disability was
accordingly taken as 8% by learned Tribunal. The finding on this aspect
recorded vide impugned award by learned Tribunal is accordingly affirmed.
7. Learned counsel for appellant/claimant is aggrieved by quantum
of compensation under different heads i.e. pain and sufferings, disability and
Rs.2,000/- towards loss of earning capacity during treatment.
8. As far as reimbursement of medical expenses is concerned,
appellant/claimant has succeeded in proving that he had spent Rs.27,000/-
on his treatment. Apart from said amount, appellant/claimant must have
spent some amount on special diet, transportation expenses, attendant
charges etc. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.40,000/- is awarded for
medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges etc.
9. Since appellant/claimant had suffered multiple injuries and
fracture on both bones of left leg, therefore, he ought to have remained under
treatment for at least a period of four months. He also must have remained
out of job for atleast four months as 8 weeks is generally taken for a fracture
to heal. Though appellant/claimant had claimed that he was not able to work
for 2.5 years, however, bald statement made by appellant/claimant appearing
as PW1 cannot be accepted in absence of any medical records justifying
reasons for not working for 2.5 years and for being under treatment.
Fractures generally gets healed in eight (8) weeks, therefore, the period of
treatment is taken as 4 months only.
10. In present case, injured-appellant-claimant had claimed himself
to be an agriculturist, however, had not stated exact amount of income
through said vocation. Learned Tribunal has taken minimum wages payable
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.11.13 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5374-2003 -5-
to labourer i.e. Rs.2,000/- to be income of appellant/claimant whereas
learned counsel states that injured was skilled worker, therefore, his income
be taken as Rs.2,200/- per month. The Income of appellant/claimant
therefore, is taken as Rs.2,200/- as per the minimum wages payable to
skilled worker in the year 2000.
11. Injured-appellant-claimant was stated to be aged 26 years at the
time of accident to which there is no rebuttal. Therefore, injured-appellant-
claimant is taken in age group of 26 years and 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 & Ors. ,
2017 (16) SCC 680. Multiplier of ‘17’ shall be applicable as per the age of
appellant/claimant in view of judgment 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
appellant-claimant has to be determined by taking functional disability
equivalent to 8% after taking monthly income of the injured to be
Rs.2,200/ -, by adding future prospects to the extent of 40% and by applying
multiplier of ‘ 17 ’.
12. Appellant-claimant was granted compensation of Rs.5,000/- for
pain and sufferings, which keeping in view nature of injuries, nature of
treatment, permanent disability, period of hospitalization is totally
insufficient and same is accordingly enhanced to Rs.50,000/- . Since
appellant-claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 8%, he
would have been deprived of future amenities of life as well as future
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.11.13 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5374-2003 -6-
prospects of life, therefore, he shall be entitled to compensation for loss of
future prospects and future amenities of life which is quantified at
Rs.50,000/- . Appellant-claimant must have also suffered loss of income for
the time he was under treatment and keeping in view period of
hospitalization and nature of injuries, it is made out that appellant-claimant
must have remained out of job for at least 04 months. Accordingly,
compensation for loss of income during treatment is assessed as Rs.8,800 /-
Rs.2,200 X 4). No future medical expenses are payable in absence of any
evidence in this regard.
13. Re-worked compensation payable to appellant-claimant is as
under :-
Income Rs.2,200/- per month Rs.2,200/- per month
Future prospects 40% (Rs.2,200 + 880) Rs.3,080/-
8% Permanent 8% of Rs.3,080/- Rs.246
disability
Multiplier 17 17
Total loss of earning Rs.246 x 12 x 17 Rs.50,184
capacity
Loss of income during Rs.2,200 x 4 Rs.8,800/-
treatment
Compensation for
medical expenses,
transportation, special
diet and attendant
charges
Rs.26,900/-
Rs.40,000/-
(by Tribunal)
Compensation for pain Rs.5,000/-
and sufferings (as awarded by
Tribunal)
Rs.50,000/-
Compensation for loss
of future prospects and
future amenities of life
Rs.50,000/-
Total compensation
awarded by the
Tribunal
Rs.72,000/-
Total compensation Rs.1,98,984/-
awarded in appeal
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.11.13 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-5374-2003 -7-
Rs.1,26,984/-
Enhanced Rs.1,98,984/- (as
compensation awarded in appeal) –
Rs.72,000/- (as awarded
by Tribunal)
14. 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.
15. Present appeal is allowed in above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
12.11.2026 JUDGE
Chiranjeev
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
CHIRANJEEV SINGH
2026.11.13 14:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document