Harjinder Singh vs Sarabjit Singh & Ors

FAO-3881 of 2005 (O&M) -1-
121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3881 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.08.2026

Harjinder Singh ......... Appellant

Versus
Sarabjit Singh & Ors. .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Chirag Suri, Advocate
and Mr. Aryan Katoch, Advocate for respondents- PRTC.
Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.3 –
Insurance Company.
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)
1. On oral request made by learned counsel for the appellant,
the case is being taken up on Board today itself for hearing.
2. This appeal has been instituted by claimant for enhancement
of compensation against the Award dated 3.6.2005 passed by MACT,
Bathinda ( for short “Tribunal” ) in MACT Case No.9 of 2003 in a
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a
sum of Rs.2,21,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the
claimant/appellant along with interest 9% per annum on account of
injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and
RENU
2026.09.03 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3881 of 2005 (O&M) -2-
negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle
No.PB-11-L-7909) ( for short ‘offending vehicle’ ), owned by respondent
No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3.
3. 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.
4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed
by the learned Tribunal:-
“1. Whether Harjinder Singh met with an accident on
3.2.2003 at about 6.50 A.M., in the revenue limits of
PS Tapa in bus No.PB-11-L-7909 and received
multiple injuries due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.1?OPA
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation as
claimed in the claim application and if so what
amount and from whom?OPA
3. Whether the respondent No.1 Sarabjit Singh was not
holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident?
OPR
4. 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.2,21,000/- 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 respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and
RENU
2026.09.03 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3881 of 2005 (O&M) -3-
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 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 in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent
driving on the part of respondent No.1, which was owned by respondent
No.2 and 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.
9. 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. In support
of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon 2014
(1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways and 2017
(16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others .
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued
RENU
2026.09.03 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3881 of 2005 (O&M) -4-
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. 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 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,
RENU
2026.09.03 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3881 of 2005 (O&M) -5-
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.
(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.
Assessment of Compensation
13. As per version of claimant, he was student of MBBS (II
Prof.) and he also produced certificate of MBBS (II Prof.) examination
held in May/ June, 2004 from Baba Farid University of Health Sciences,
Faridkot Ex.A13 from which it is established that he was student of
RENU
2026.09.03 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3881 of 2005 (O&M) -6-
MBBS. He also tendered MBBS (Ist Prof.) result card which shows that
he passed his examination in May/ June, 2002 and as such, he lost one
year in his academics.
14. As per version of claimant, he suffered grievous injuries in
the accident in question. PW5 – Dr. P. Vankatesan Junior Resident
deposed that claimant had suffered two fractures on left thigh and right
thigh bone and he remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh from 4.2.2003
to 15.2.2003 and from 24.9.2003 to 9.10.2003 and he tendered bed head
ticket Ex.A-8. He also tendered the permanent disability certificate
Ex.A-9/ A-1 issued by Civil Surgeon, Bathinda, according to which
claimant had suffered 10% permanent disability with 2 cm shortening of
left lower limb.
15. Tribunal awarded him total compensation of Rs.2,21,000/-
under following heads:-
1. Loss of pain and sufferings due to injuries Rs.42,553/-
2. Loss of shortening left lower limb Rs.20,000/-
3. Expenses of special diet Rs.10,000/-
4. Expenses of attendance Rs. 5,000/-
5. Loss of study Rs.50,000/-
5. Misc. expenses Rs. 5,000/-
6. Expenses of medical treatment Rs.80,447/-
RENU
2026.09.03 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3881 of 2005 (O&M) -7-
7. Expenses of taxi/ambulance Rs. 8,000/-
_________________
Total: Rs.2,21,000/-
__________________
16. As such, from the evidence led on file, it is established that
claimant had suffered two fractures and he was operated upon and there
is shortening of leg. During pendency of the present appeal, claimant has
moved an application bearing CM No.4843-CII of 2026 under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC and vide order dated 12.03.2026, the matter was referred to
MACT, Bathinda and a report was sought regarding the percentage of
disability suffered by the claimant. Claimant thereafter examined Dr.
Rachna and has closed his evidence. Though no specific order was
passed that the application has been allowed but it appears to be a
typographical error and since the matter had been remitted and report has
been called from the Tribunal, the application i.e. CM No.4843-CII of
2026 shall be deemed to have been allowed. Claimant in order to prove
his disability, examined Dr. Rachna, Assistant Civil Surgeon, in
additional evidence, who deposed that as per certificate Mark X, claimant
has suffered 40% permanent disability and the certificate bears signatures
of Dr. Parveen, MS Ortho, Member of the Board and Dr. Jitender Kansal,
Assistant Civil Surgeon. She further deposed that total assessment was
done at Rajindra Medical College and Hospital, Patiala. During cross-
examination, she stated that Dr. Parveen Puri and Dr. Jatinder Kansal
RENU
2026.09.03 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3881 of 2005 (O&M) -8-
have retired from service and the other two doctors, who have issued the
certificate namely Dr. Usha Kandara and Dr. Richa Pandav are also not
posted at Civil Hospital, Patiala and their whereabouts are not known. As
such, it is established that the disability of the claimant has been assessed
by Board of Doctors on the basis of report of the Orthopaedic Surgeon
from Rajindra Medical College, Patiala and there is thus no reason to
disbelieve the disability certificate Mark X. As per the disability
certificate Mark X, claimant has suffered 40% permanent disability on
account of abnormalities in both hands and right foot due to fracture left
femur and right leg. Accordingly, it is established that he has suffered
40% permanent disability and such a disability shall certainly diminish
his earning capability as he will not be able to do his job or routine work
and lead his life in the same manner as he was leading prior to the
accident. The compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ thus has to
be assessed keeping in view the percentage by which his earning
capability has been 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 .
17. Accident had taken place in the year 2003 and it can be
assumed that the claimant who was pursuing MBBS would have earned
at least Rs.15,000/- per month after completing his MBBS. He was a
young boy of 20 years of age and in view of law laid down in Sanjay
Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), 40% amount
RENU
2026.09.03 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3881 of 2005 (O&M) -9-
has to be added to his monthly income towards future prospects which
brings his monthly income to Rs.21,000/- per month (Rs.15,000/- +
Rs.6,000/-) .
18. Claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of
40% but this disability pertains to a particular limb only and is not qua
whole of the body. Accordingly, his functional disability for the purpose
of assessment of compensation is taken as 25% and the monthly loss of
income will thus come to Rs.5,250/- (Rs.21,000/- X .25%) and ‘ annual
loss of income ’ will come out to Rs.63,000/- per annum (i.e.
Rs.5,250/-/- X 12) .
19. The claimant was 20 years of age and in view of law laid
down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the multiplier of 18 has to be
applied which takes the compensation to Rs.11,34,000/- (Rs.63,000/- X
18) on account of ‘ loss of income ’ due to permanent disability.
20. The claimant had suffered two fractures and he was operated
upon and there is shortening of leg. 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.75,000/- for pain and sufferings and for
shortening of leg as against Rs.62,553/- (Rs.42,553/- + Rs.20,000/-)
awarded by the Tribunal.
21. During the period of treatment, he must have spent some
amount on nutritious diet, transportation and in engaging an attendant.
RENU
2026.09.03 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3881 of 2005 (O&M) -10-
Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- for
nutritious diet, Rs.15,000/-for engaging an attendant and Rs.10,000/-
for the expenses incurred on transportation and the total amount
comes out to Rs.40,000/- .
22. Claimant has produced medical bill dated 7.1.2003 Ex.A.10
which was issued much earlier from the date of accident. He has also
produced Ex.A.10/40 receipt No.475 dated 15.2.2003 issued by S. John
Ambulance Association. He has also submitted medical bills and other
bills Ex.A10/1 to Ex.A10/62 but did not examine any person who issued
the bills. In para No.1 of his affidavit Ex.AW4/A, has submitted that he
had spent amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on his treatment but he was able to
produce medical bills worth Rs.80,447/- only 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.90,000/- for the expenses incurred on his
treatment .
23. Claimant has also been awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for
loss of academics and no enhancement in the same is called for.
24. The disability suffered by him is to the extent of 40%.
Claimant had suffered two fractures and he was operated upon and there
is shortening of leg. This disability will impact his routine activities in
RENU
2026.09.03 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3881 of 2005 (O&M) -11-
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.35,000/- on account of
loss of amenities i.e. discomfort, inconvenience, hardship and loss of
expectancy of life.
25. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded to claimant is
assessed as under:-
Sr. No. Head This Court (₹)
1. Rs.11,34,000/-
Loss of income due to
permanent disability
2. Pain and suffering
Rs.75,000/-
3. Expenses incurred on nu-
tritious diet, for engaging
an attendant and on
transportation
Rs.40,000/-
(Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- +
Rs.10,000/-).
4. Expenses incurred on his Rs.90,000/-
treatment

Loss of studies Rs.50,000/-

5. Loss of Amenities in life Rs.35,000/-
Total Rs.14,24,000/-
Interest 9%
26. 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.12,03,000/- (Rs.14,24,000/- - Rs.2,21,000/-) 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. 21.3.2003, till
realization. The enhanced amount be deposited in his bank account.
RENU
2026.09.03 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-3881 of 2005 (O&M) -12-
27. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the
judgment to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of direction
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.
28. 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
2026.09.03 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document