Vishal vs Vikesh And Ors.

FAO-259-2008
1
(O&M)



IN TH
HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA
B AND HARYANA
RH
AT CHANDIGAR

)
FAO-259-2008 (O&M)

1 The date whe
en the judgment was reserved
14.10.2026
2 The date whe
en the judgment is pronounced
12.11.2026
3 The date whe
en the judgment is uploaded on
the website 13.11.2026
4 Whether only
or whether th
5 The delay, if
and reasons

y operative part of the judgment
he full judgment is pronounced
t is pronounced Full
f any, of the pronouncement o
of full judgment Not
thereof.
applicable
VISHAL GOEL

….Appellant
Vs.
VIKESH KUMA
AR & OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON’B
BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKES
SH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Ad
Mr. Lo

Mr. R.C
for res
ditya Sanghi, Advocate and
okesh Sharma, Advocate, for t
the appellant.
C. Gupta, Advocate
spondent No.3/Insurance Com
mpany.


HARKESH MAN

1. By way of p
*
NUJA, J.
present appeal, challenge has
s been laid to an award dated
d
14.09.2007, pa
assed by the learned Motor
r Accident Claims Tribunal,
,
Narnaul (for bre
evity, “the Tribunal”), whereby
y an amount of Rs. 7,06,000/-
-
was awarded
as compensation to the ap
ppellant/claimant along with
h
interest @ 7.5%
% per annum from the date of
institution of claim petition till
l
its actual realiza
ation, on account of injuries s
suffered by him in a vehicular
r
accident, which
occurred on 11.07.2005.
FACTS
2. The appella
ant, being injured, filed a clai
m petition before the learned
d
Tribunal praying
g for grant of compensation o
of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account
t
of injuries suffer
red by him in a motor vehicul
lar accident which took place
e
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 09:40
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

2 FAO-259-2008
(O&M)

on 11.07.2005, while alleging rash and negligent driving of Max Jeep
bearing registration No. RJ-32T-0212 by respondent No. 1/driver, which
hit the motorcycle being driven by him.
3. After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led
by both the parties, learned Tribunal vide award dated 14.09.2007,
arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and
negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and awarded Rs. 7,06,000/- as
compensation, holding respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable.
4. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid award dated 14.09.2007; the
present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for
enhancement of compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition
and the issue regarding negligence of the driver having been recorded in
favour of the appellant/claimant by the learned Tribunal being not in
dispute, therefore, for the sake of brevity, those are not being repeated
here.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant assailed the
aforementioned award while submitting that the amount awarded by the
learned Tribunal was grossly meager and disproportionate to the nature
and extent of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant. It was
submitted that the appellant/claimant, aged about 36 years and running
his own business of marble and an automobile repair workshop, suffered
amputation of his left leg from the thigh level along with serious injury to
his left wrist, resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 86%, as
certified by a Medical Board; that the Tribunal assessed a meager loss of
income of Rs. 2,000/- per month and applied a low multiplier, without
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 09:40
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

3 FAO-259-2008
(O&M)

appreciating that he can no longer drive or carry on the work of repairs;
and that inadequate compensation was awarded towards medical
expenses, attendant charges, special diet, future medical expenses
including replacement of artificial limb and pain and sufferings.
Accordingly, he prayed that the compensation awarded be suitably
enhanced in accordance with the settled law so as to meet the ends of
justice.
ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
NO.3/INSURANCE COMPANY.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company
vehemently contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the appellant was adequately compensated, thus, the present appeal was
liable to be dismissed.
DISCUSSION
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book of the case as well. I find force in the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for appellant/claimant.
8. Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to
draw guidance from the principles laid down in similar cases by the
Hon’ble Apex Court. In “Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.” reported
as (2011) 1 SCC 343 the Court laid down the following heads under
which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries:-
“6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury
cases are the following:
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;
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 09:40
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

4 FAO-259-2008
(O&M)

(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 only
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, the compensation will 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”.

ON THE ASPECT OF ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION
ASSESSMENT UNDER “LOSS OF INCOME”

9. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant/claimant was 36
years old at the time of the accident. Prior thereto, he had worked as
Works Manager with M/s Atul Motors, Narnaul on a monthly salary of Rs.
8,000/- (PW-6, Ex.PW6/3 to Ex.PW6/8) and thereafter, from July 2004,
was running his own business. His income tax returns for the assessment
years 2003-04 to 2005-06 were proved on record as Ex.PW13/2 to
Ex.PW13/17 through PW-13. Though he claimed his monthly income to
be Rs. 15,000/-, the same is not borne out from the returns, which reflect
an annual income ranging from about Rs. 73,000/- to Rs. 1,03,000/-.
Therefore, in view of the evidence on record, the monthly income of the
appellant/claimant is assessed as Rs. 8,000/-. The assessment of loss of
income at Rs. 2,000/- per month by the learned Tribunal, without any
basis, is thus unsustainable.
9.1. As per the statements of Dr. Sanjay Negi (PW-9) and Dr. Guru
Parshad Gupta (PW-8), the appellant/claimant remained admitted at
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 09:40
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

5 FAO-259-2008
(O&M)

Khandaka Hospital, Jaipur from 11.07.2005 to 04.08.2005 and thereafter,
was repeatedly hospitalized at Apex Hospital, Jaipur upto 12.05.2006,
where several operations were conducted, and was advised bed rest
continuously upto 24.09.2006 (Ex.PW8/8 to Ex.PW8/12). Thus, he was
unable to work for about 14½ months after the accident and the loss of
income suffered by him during the said period is assessed as Rs.
1,16,000/- (8,000 x 14½).
9.2. Further, Dr. T.S. Bagri, Medical Officer (PW-7), deposed that the
Medical Board constituted on 17.08.2006 found the appellant/claimant to
be having 86% permanent disability on account of amputation of left leg
above knee and malunited fracture of left wrist with loss of range of
movement (Ex.PW7/A). Though the said disability pertains to particular
limbs and not the whole body, the appellant/claimant can neither drive a
vehicle, nor lift heavy weight, nor attend to the work of repairs of
automobiles, as deposed by PW-8, and the nature of his avocation has to
be kept in mind while assessing functional disability. Thus, it would be just
and fair if the functional disability of the appellant/claimant is assessed @
75%. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of “Pappu
Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar” reported as 2020 INSC 553 held that in
cases where a claimant suffers disability due to a motor vehicle accident,
compensation may be awarded not only for the future loss of income but
also towards future prospects.
9.3. The computation of future prospects is to be done as per the law
laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
“National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi” reported as (2017) 16
SCC 680 , para 59.4 of which, dealing with self-employed persons, reads
as under:-
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 09:40
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

6 FAO-259-2008
(O&M)

“59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an
addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the
deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the
deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years, and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method to arrive at the just compensation.”
9.4. The appellant/claimant, being self-employed and below 40 years of
age, is entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects @ 40%.
Therefore, his income after adding future prospects be taken as Rs.
11,200/- (8,000 + 3,200) per month. As regards the multiplier, the one of
14 applied by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down in
“Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation” reported as
(2009) 6 SCC 121 , approved in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), according to
which the multiplier for the age group of 36 to 40 years is 15; the plea that
a multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied is, however, not tenable.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the compensation payable for the
functional disability to the extent of 75% is assessed @ Rs. 15,12,000/-
(11,200 x 12 x 15 x 75/100).
ASSESSMENT UNDER “MEDICAL EXPENSES/HOSPITALIZATION”
10. The learned Tribunal itself found that the treatment charges proved
on record were Rs. 2,62,574/- (Rs. 1,20,185/- for hospitalization and Rs.
1,42,389/- for medicines, investigations and operation material), besides
ambulance and conveyance charges of Rs. 19,550/- (PW-12) and Rs.
14,750/- and other expenses proved through PW-15, and yet awarded
only a global sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for treatment, conveyance and special
diet. It is not possible for an injured or his family, in such a traumatic
situation, to preserve every bill, and nothing was left for special diet and
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 09:40
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

7 FAO-259-2008
(O&M)

incidental expenses. Therefore, compensation under this head is
reassessed as Rs. 3,50,000/-.
Learned Tribunal also failed to award any compensation towards
future medical expenses and artificial limb. PW-8 deposed that the cost of
artificial foot would be approximately Rs. 25,000/- and it would have to be
replaced after every 1½ years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “G Vivek
v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.” reported as 2023 ACJ 585 has
recognized the entitlement of an injured to the cost of periodic
replacement and maintenance of the artificial prosthetic limb. Therefore,
in the present case, considering the age of the appellant/claimant and the
multiplier of 15 applicable to him, this Court in its humble opinion awards
Rs. 2,50,000/- for 10 replacements of artificial limb [10 x 25,000] towards
future medical expenses.
ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER ‘PECUNIARY HEADS’
11. PW-14 Rajender Saini and PW-15 Smt. Meena proved that an
attendant was employed @ Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 39,000/- stood
paid upto 14.08.2006, whereas PW-8 deposed that the appellant/claimant
would need the services of another person even after the artificial limb is
fitted. However, learned Tribunal awarded a meager sum of Rs. 20,000/-
for attendant charges. Therefore, compensation granted under this head
is reassessed as Rs. 2,00,000/-.
ON THE ASPECT OF PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND LOSS OF
AMENITIES
12. For assessing just compensation under the head of pain and
sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in “K. Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024
INSC 886,” wherein it was held that the award of compensation under
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 09:40
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

8 FAO-259-2008
(O&M)

non-pecuniary heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity
of the injuries suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of
hospitalization, and the mental and physical agony endured by the
claimant.
12.1. In the present case, the appellant/claimant sustained grievous
injuries, was hospitalized on several occasions, remained bed ridden for
more than a year, underwent repeated operations and ultimately suffered
amputation of his left leg at the thigh level along with deformity of left
wrist, resulting in 86% permanent disability at the age of 36 years. The
amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is, therefore,
grossly inadequate and the same is enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Further,
since the appellant/claimant has been deprived of the normal enjoyment
of life and can no longer drive or engage in physical activities, an amount
of Rs. 1,50,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of amenities.
CONCLUSION
13. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the
appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the
following manner:-
S.No. Nature Amount (in Rs.)
1. Loss of Income (Rs. 1,16,000 + Rs. 15,12,000) Rs. 16,28,000/-
2. Medical Expenses/Hospitalization (Rs. 3,50,000
Rs. 6,00,000/-
+ Rs. 2,50,000 for future medical expenses
including artificial limb)
3. Compensation under other pecuniary head
Rs. 2,00,000/-
(attendant charges)
4. Compensation under pain and sufferings Rs. 3,00,000/-
5. Compensation under loss of amenities Rs. 1,50,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 28,78,000/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 7,06,000/-
Enhanced Amount Rs. 21,72,000/-

TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 09:40
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

9 FAO-259-2008
(O&M)

Though the appellant/claimant claimed Rs. 20,00,000/-, there is no
bar to award of just compensation in excess of the amount claimed, as
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh”
reported as (2003) 2 SCC 274 .
14. The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not equitable and just in
view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt.
Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and
other,” reported as (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent
judgment titled as “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy
and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443,” thus, the interest is enhanced to
9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant
from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the
said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable
thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three
months from today. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall remain jointly and
severally liable to pay the same. Needless to mention here that the
amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted
from the enhanced compensation.
15. Accordingly, appeal filed at the instance of appellant/claimant is
allowed and the award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified in the
aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous applications(s) if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
November 12, 2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.11.13 09:40
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document