Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited vs Tushar Yadav & Ors

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-1389-2017 (O&M)
RESERVED ON:08.10.2026
PRONOUNCED ON:31.10.2026
UPLOADED ON: 31.10.2026
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
... Appellant
VERSUS
TUSHAR YADAV (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND
OTHERS
....Respondents

FAO-5626-2017 (O&M)
TUSHAR YADAV (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS
... Appellants
VERSUS
JEET RAM AND OTHERS

....Respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
CORAM: DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA
Present: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant (in FAO-1389-2017) and
for respondent No.3 (in FAO-5626-2017).
Ms. Deepshikha, Advocate for
Mr. Anil Kumar Gahlawat, Advocate
for the appellants (in FAO-5626-2017) and
for respondent No.1 (in FAO-1389-2017).
*
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :2:
DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA , J.
1. Both the appeals, as noticed above, are being decided together,
by way of this common judgment as in both the appeals, the award dated
11.11.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') is under challenge. FAO-1389-2017
has been filed by the Insurance Company for modification of the award
dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Tribunal whereas FAO-5626-2017 has been
filed by the claimant-Tushar Yadav through his legal heirs seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.12.2014 at about 8.30 p.m.,
one Karambir, alongwith his friend Tushar Yadav, were standing opposite
Dr.Anil Hospital, Garhi Bolni Road, Rewari, near Ganda Nala, on the
Kutcha berm of the road and a scooty bearing registration No.RJ-02SV-
9149 was parked. In the meantime, the offending car bearing registration
No.HR-36Q-8100 came from Garhi Bolni side, which was being driven by
driver – Jeet Ram in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed hit
Karambir and Tushar Yadav from behind. As a result of the accident, both
Karambir and Tushar sustained serious injuries. After the accident, driver –
Jeet Ram got down from the car but ultimately fled away from the spot
alongwith his car.
3. After the accident, Tushar Yadav was firstly taken to Dr.
Birendra Hospital, Rewari, where first aid was given to him, but due to his
serious condition, he was taken to Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon. It transpires
that Tushar Yadav remained admitted to Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon, from
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :3:
04.12.2014 to 19.01.2015, where he received treatment for a fracture of the
rd
distal 3 of the right femur with intra-articular extension with bone loss
rd
(open fracture type 3B0 with right proximal 3 tibia (open grade-2). As per
Tushar Yadav, he spent a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on medicines during
treatment taken from the hospital, Rs.5,00,000/- were spent on attendant
charges, Rs.2,00,000/- on transportation and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on
special diet. He was about 14 years of age at the time of accident and was a
student. On account of injuries caused to Tushar Yadav and Karambir, due to
rash and negligent driving of driver-Jeet Ram, Tushar Yadav and Karambir
filed claim petitions before the Tribunal wherein Tushar Yadav was claiming
a compensation of an amount of Rs.1 crore.
4. Both the claim petitions filed by Karambir and Tushar Yadav
were decided by the common award dated 11.11.2016 passed by the
Tribunal. As per the award dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Tribunal, the
Tribunal has assessed the functional disability of Tushar Yadav at 40% and
awarded him a total compensation of Rs.22,20,000/- for the injuries
sustained by him in the accident. It further transpires from the award that
out of this total amount of Rs.22,20,000/-, a lump-sum amount of Rs.2 lakhs
was granted under the head of future prospects, whereas a lump-sum amount
of Rs.1 lakh was awarded towards pain and suffering, special diet and loss
of amenities, while an amount of Rs.18,91,000/- was awarded towards
medical and hospitalization expenses and an amount of Rs.29,000/- was
awarded towards transportation costs.
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :4:
5. Aggrieved against the award dated 11.11.2016 passed by the
Tribunal, the Insurance Company and the claimant-Tushar Yadav have filed
two separate appeals.
FAO-1389-2017
6. The only contention raised by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company is that, out of the total medical
bill, the claimant has received medi-claim of Rs.4 lakhs from E-Meditek
TPA Service PV, as such, the above said amount should have been deducted
from the final compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
7. In regard to the only contention raised by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company is concerned, it is
well settled law that the amount received by a claimant as a medi-claim from
the personal medical insurance is not to be deducted from final
compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Reliance is
made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in New
India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Dolly Satish Gandhi and another,
2026 (3) RCR (Civil) 135 . In the above said judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court of India has held that the medi-claim benefits are contractual, arising
from premiums paid, whereas compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act is
statutory in nature and is intended to provide just compensation for injuries
caused by motor vehicle accident. As such, the amount received as a medi-
claim benefit under a medical insurance policy is not to be deducted from
the final compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :5:
8. The relevant extract of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court of India in Dolly Satish Gandhi's case (supra) is reproduced
hereunder:-
“9. Having considered judgments of this Court as above, we are of
the considered opinion that the answer to the question raised in this
appeal is not a matter of Sherlockian deduction. A Mediclaim policy is a
policy that is purchased by a person, accounting for the uncertainties of
life and preparing a financial base for an unfortunate possible eventuality.
The human body is a coming together of intricate systems where there is
always a possibility that something may go wrong or may need mending.
In today's time when medical expenses are skyrocketing for a variety of
reasons, the ability to meet such expenses, suddenly as and when they may
arise, is not something that rests with all. It is, as such, a necessary facet
of preparation that people undertake. It doesn't specifically deal with
accidental coverage only.
10. The contractual benefit of reimbursement of medical expenses as
a result of this policy is, therefore, independent of any other claim. The
provisions of the MVA are only triggered in the unfortunate eventuality if a
death or injury arising out of a motor vehicle an accident occurs. That in
itself, when it does arise, cannot eclipse the contractual benefit to which a
person who has paid premiums, is entitled too. Compensation under MVA
while it recognizes reimbursement of medical expenses is distinct from the
contractual benefit, though it may be with respect to the very same heads.
If the view of the High Courts that this would amount to "double benefit"
is agreed to by this Court, a peculiar situation will arise. On the one end,
it may save compensation from being affected by double benefit, if it can
be called that, but on the other, it would denude the claimant of the
benefits that arise out of them parting with their hard-earned money in the
form of Mediclaim premiums. It would also amount to an undue advantage
to the company granting the Mediclaim policy to the claimant if the
claimant's claim is extinguished by the award of the MACT having granted
medical expenses for, they would have received the premium but would not
be required to pay any amount in the event of medical bills having arisen.
Similarly, it may amount to an unjust benefit to the insurer of the offending
vehicle if they are not required to compensate under one of the heads of
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :6:
medical expenses solely on account of the fact that the claimant had
received the benefit of a policy for which they had been paying premiums
for years on end. There is yet another aspect. The guiding yardstick in
Mediclaim vis a vis MVA is different. In the former, a Mediclaim policy is
taken up to a certain amount and if the claim of the policy holder once
found to be holding merit go beyond it, the holder has no option but to
foot the bill out of pocket however in the latter, because of its beneficial
nature the only guide is the broad principle of just and fair compensation.
Put differently, the compensation that may be awarded thereunder has no
strict monetary limits.
11. We may also say that looking at these two amounts as "double
benefit" may not be appropriate since one situation is only the fruit of
amounts already paid in the past. Only because they appear same or
similar, they cannot be termed as "double benefit". Still further there is
another reason why these two amounts stand on a different footing. The
amount received under MVA arises from a beneficial legislation and as
guided by just compensation which is intended to put the injured or the
claimants (legal representatives of the deceased) in a position, as far as
possible, at least monetarily, if the accident in question had not taken
place. Naturally, this stands on a higher pedestal - not only because it is a
statutory entitlement of compensation but also because the nature of the
statute is entirely beneficial. To equate these two amounts to pulling down
the MVA or unnecessarily hyping up the Mediclaim policy.”
9. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and in
light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in
Dolly Satish Gandhi's case (supra), the contention raised by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance company that the amount of
Rs.4 lakhs received by the respondent No.1-claimant from medi-claim
should be deducted from the final compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
cannot be accepted and is, accordingly, rejected.
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :7:
FAO-5626-2017
10. In FAO-5626-2017, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellants-claimants submits that a perusal of the award dated 11.11.2016
passed by the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal has failed to assess the
monthly income of the minor while determining the quantum of
compensation. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has granted lump
sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of future prospects including
future medical expenses. She submits that there must be addition to the
actual income of the deceased while computing the compensation under the
head of future prospects following the principle laid down in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others,
2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009. She further submits that in case of a minor,
minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker/labourer at the time of
accident have to be taken into consideration while assessing the income of a
minor. Learned counsel submits that on the date of accident, i.e. 03.12.2014,
the minimum wages applicable in the case of skilled worker/labourer fixed
by the State of Haryana was Rs.6159/-. Learned counsel further submits that
no amount under the head of loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability suffered by appellant-claimant and under the head of attendant
charges and loss of marriage prospects has been awarded by the Tribunal
while granting compensation. Learned counsel also submits that the amounts
given under the head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life are
on the lower side.
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :8:
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the case file with their able assistance.
12. In regard to the contention raised by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant-claimant that the Tribunal failed to assess the
monthly income of the appellant-claimant is concerned, it is well settled law
that in case of a minor suffering permanent disability on account of motor
vehicular accident, minimum wages applicable to skilled worker/labourer at
the time of accident has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of
assessing income. Reliance is made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court of India in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai
Rabari and another, 2025 SCC Online SC 3446 . Relevant extract of the
judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
“9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are
inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In
the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into
account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the
quantum of compensation. It is now a wellentrenched and consistently
reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or
permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the
same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing
the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful
employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of
compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by
adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled
workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where
the cause of action arises. The said observation was rendered by this Court,
in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 413 , and Baby Sakshi
Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr., 2024 SCC Online SC 3692 . ”
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :9:
13. In light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
of India in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel's case (supra), as minimum wages for a
skilled worker/labourer fixed by the State of Haryana at the time of accident,
was Rs.6159/-, accordingly, the income of the appellant-claimant is taken as
Rs.6159/- per month.
14. In regard to the contention raised by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of appellant that addition has to be made to the actual income of
the deceased while computing future prospects is concerned, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and others, 2022
(13) SCC 790, held that in addition to loss of future earnings (based on
determination of income at the time of accident), the claimants are also
entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects (following the
principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009), in a case of permanent
disability under the Motor Vehicles Act.
15. In regard to the contention of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant-claimant that the Tribunal failed to consider
compensation under the loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability is concerned, it is well settled law that in the case of permanent
disability, claimant is entitled for compensation under the head of loss of
future earning. Relevant extract from the judgment of Pappu Deo Yadav's
case (supra), is reproduced hereunder:-
“ 7. Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of
permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :10:
claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income,
amounts for future prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the
first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding
that Pranay Sethi Supra involved assessment of compensation in a case
where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the
three-judge bench decision in Jagdish Supra was not binding, but rather
that the subsequent decision in Anant Supra to the extent that it did not
award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This court is of the
opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the
previous rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation
for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting
in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi Supra
is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim
progressing further in life in accident cases – and admits such possibility
of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.
8. This court has emphasized time and again that "just
compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the
victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of
the accident. Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation
can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a
serious accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary
compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society assures some
measure of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to
face their lives. In Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited
(2012) 6 SCC 421 , this Court held that:
"14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the
observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla
Verma's case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on
a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the
Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death
and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and
exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it
will be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a
person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary
without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the
same throughout his life.
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :11:
15. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board.
It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter
of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of
living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-
employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst
affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate
additional income necessary for sustaining their families.
16. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State
Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been
revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising
prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the
families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed
in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two
decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV
employee of the Government would be in five figures and total
emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the
figure of rupees one lac.
17. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized
sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not
kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government
employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be
denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income
of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily
basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial
notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by
high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category
periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may
be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by
stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of
essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his
labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled
labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc.
18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations
in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment,
the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will
be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :12:
who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that
a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will
also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of
time and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same
formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of
compensation."
9. In Jagdish Supra. the victim, a carpenter, suffered permanent
disablement, and his claim for compensation including for loss of future
prospects was considered by a three-judge bench (which included,
incidentally, the judges who had decided Pranay Sethi Supra ). This court
held that:
"13. In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi
[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC
680] , this Court has held that the benefit of future prospects should
not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would
extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of a self-employed
person, an addition of 40% of the established income should be
made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was
below 40 years. Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be
entitled to an enhancement of Rs.2400 towards loss of future
prospects.
14. In making the computation in the present case, the court must
be mindful of the fact that the appellant has suffered a serious
disability in which he has suffered a loss of the use of both his
hands. For a person engaged in manual activities, it requires no
stretch of imagination to understand that a loss of hands is a
complete deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing-at least in the
facts of this case-can restore lost hands. But the measure of
compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore
the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not
be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values
human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic
recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering.
Awards of compensation are not law's doles. In a discourse of
rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations
about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :13:
individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to
human dignity.
15. The Tribunal has noted that the appellant is unable to even eat
or to attend to a visit to the toilet without the assistance of an
attendant. In this background, it would be a denial of justice to
compute the disability at 90%. The disability is indeed total.
Having regard to the age of the appellant, the Tribunal applied a
multiplier of 18. In the circumstances, the compensation payable to
the appellant on account of the loss of income, including future
prospects, would be Rs. 18, 14,400. In addition to this amount, the
appellant should be granted an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on account
of pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The amount awarded by
the Tribunal towards medical expenses (Rs 98,908); for extra
nourishment (Rs 25,000) and for attendant's expenses (Rs 1 lakh)
is maintained.The Tribunal has declined to award any amount
towards future treatment. The appellant should be allowed an
amount of Rs. 3 lakhs towards future medical expenses. The
appellant is thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 25,38,308 by way of
compensation. The appellant would be entitled to interest at the
rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation from the date of the filing of
the claim petition. The liability to pay compensation has been
fastened by the Tribunal and by the High Court on the insurer,
owner and driver jointly and severally which is affirmed. The
amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of 6
weeks from today and shall be paid over to the appellant upon
proper identification."
10. The recent decision in Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd (2019) 7 SCC 217 , involved an accident victim who underwent
surgery for hemiplegia. According to the treating medic, he could not work
as a labourer or perform any agricultural work, or work as a driver (as he
was wont to); the assessment of his disability was at 75%, and of a
permanent nature. The court held that:
"5.2. On the basis of the affidavit filed by the employer of the
appellant, we accept that the income of the appellant was Rs.
10,000 p.m. at the time of the accident, for the purpose of
computing the compensation payable to him.
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :14:
5.1. The appellant has however, produced an affidavit by his
employer in this Court. As per the said affidavit, the appellant was
earning Rs. 10,000 p.m. at the time of the accident.
5.3. Taking the income of the appellant as Rs. 10,000 p.m., with
future prospects @ 50% as awarded by the High Court, the total
income of the appellant would come to Rs. 15,000 p.m.
5.4. The appellant was 23 years old at the time when the accident
occurred. Applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of future earnings
suffered by the appellant would work out to Rs. 15,000 x 12 x 18 =
Rs. 32,40,000.

5.7. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd (2012) 12 SCC
274 , this Court held that at page 279, para 10 :
"10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while
determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the
sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability
to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities
which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to
earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. Hence,
while computing compensation the approach of the Tribunal or a
court has to be broadbased. Needless to say, it would involve some
guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a
precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In
determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of "just
compensation" should be inhered."
*
5.9. In the present case, it is an admitted position that it is not
possible for the appellant to get employed as a driver, or do any
kind of manual labour, or engage in any agricultural operations
whatsoever, for his sustenance. In such circumstances, the High
Court has rightly assessed the appellant's functional disability at
100% insofar as his loss of earning capacity is concerned. The
appellant is, therefore, awarded Rs. 32,40,000 towards loss of
earning capacity."
11. Yet later and more recently in an accident case, which tragically left in
its wake a young girl in a life-long state of paraplegia, this court, in Kajal
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :15:
v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 reiterated that in addition to loss of
earnings, compensation for future prospects too could be factored in, and
observed that:
"14. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi
[Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, (1979) 4
SCC 365 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 996 : 1980 ACJ 55] , this Court held :
(SCC p. 366, para 2)
"2. .. the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not
niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in
generous scales."
15. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [R.D.
Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 250] , dealing with the different heads of
compensation in injury cases this Court held thus : (SCC p. 556,
para 9)
"9. Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of compensation
payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be
assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of
money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order
to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include
expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance;
(ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other
material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned,
they may include : (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain
and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future;
(ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which
may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the
claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for loss
of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity
of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship,
discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :16:
16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar,
(2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri)
1161] , this Court laid down the heads under which compensation
is to be awarded for personal injuries : (SCC p. 348, para 6)
"6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal
injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, 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).
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, 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."
17. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [K. Suresh v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 : (2013) 2
SCC (Civ) 279 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 638] , this Court held as
follows : (SCC p. 276, para 2)
"2. .. There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart
or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the
pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the
realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, section 168 of the
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :17:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") stipulates that
there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a
challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation"
which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously,
should not be a pittance."

Loss of earnings
20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young
child of 12 years only notional income of Rs. 15,000 p.a . can be
taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of
assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying
could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs.
15,000 p.a. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but
taking notional income to be Rs. 15,000 p.a. is not at all justified.
The appellant has placed before us material to show that the
minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs. 4846 per
month. In our opinion, this would be the minimum amount which
she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the
future prospects, it works to be Rs. 6784.40 per month i.e.
81,412.80 p.a. Applying the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs.
14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs. 14,66,000."
12. In view of the above decisive rulings of this court, the High
Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future
prospects could not be awarded. In addition to loss of future
earnings (based on a determination of the income at the time of
accident), the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of
future prospects, @ 40% (following the Pranay Sethi principle).”
16. A perusal of the record would show that as per Ex.PW-7/A the
permanent disability of the appellant-claimant was held to be 57% on
account of post traumatic marked restricted movement of right knee with
marked loss of stability with shortening with scarring and pain. However, as
per the disability certificate the disability is likely to improve after a period
of 05 years considering that the appellant-claimant was a young man of 15
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :18:
years of age. Keeping in view the fact that the disability is likely to improve
to some extent but the appellant-claimant will still face difficulty in carrying
out his day to day activities, as such, this Court deems it fit to assess the
functional disability of the appellant-claimant at 40% for determining the
loss of future earnings.
17. In light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in Pappu Deo Yadav's case (supra), the appellant-claimant is held entitled
for grant of compensation under the heads loss of future earning and loss of
future prospects following the principle laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra).
18. In regard to the contention raised by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant-claimant, that no amount has been awarded under
the head of attendant charges and loss of marriage prospects is concerned, a
perusal of the facts of the present case would show that the appellant-
claimant was admitted in hospital for a period of 65-66 days and also
suffered permanent disability which would substantially affects his prospects
of marriage. Taking into consideration the above said facts, the appellant-
claimant is also held entitled for compensation under the heads of attendant
charges and loss of marriage prospects as well.
19. In regard to the last contention raised by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant-claimant that compensation awarded
under the head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life is on the
lower side is concerned, this Court taking into consideration the facts of the
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :19:
case, finds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of
pain and sufferings and loss of amenities is also on lower side.
20. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the appellant-
claimant in FAO-5626-2017 is entitled for enhanced compensation.
Accordingly, compensation payable to the appellant-claimant is reassessed
as under:-
Assessment
Date of Accident 03.12.2014
Age of injured 14 years
Occupation student
Claimant Tushar Yadav (since deceased) through his LRs
1. Annual Income Rs.73,908/-per annum
Rs.6,159/- per month (skilled worker)
2. Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1,03,471/-
Rs.73,908/- (+) Rs.29, 563/-
Rs.7,44,991/-
3. Loss of future earnings @ 40% disability
by applying multiplier of 18
Rs.1, 03,471/ X 40% X 18
4. Hospitalization and treatment (as awarded Rs.18,91,000/-
by the Tribunal)
5. Transportation (as awarded by the Rs.29,000/-
Tribunal)
6. Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
7. Loss of amenities of life Rs.2,00,000/-
8. loss of marriage prospects Rs.5,00,000/-
9 Attendant charges Rs.50,000/-
10. Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.22,20,000/-
11. Enhanced compensation Rs.13,94,991/-
12. Final enhanced compensation Rs.36,14,991/-
21. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to an
extent that the appellant-claimant is held entitled for enhanced compensation
of Rs.36,14,991/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, as awarded by the
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

FAO-1389-2017 & FAO-5626-2017 :20:
Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual
realization.
22. The respondents No.1, 2 and 3, being driver, owner and
Insurance Company are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
jointly and severally along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of
2 months from the date of passing of this judgment.
23. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced
compensation along with interest in the account of LRs of the appellant-
claimant in equal shares, as the appellant-claimant has expired during the
pendency of the present appeals. The LRs of the appellant-claimant are
directed to furnish the bank account details to the Tribunal.
24. In view of the above, the FAO-1389-2017 filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed whereas FAO-5626-2017 filed by the appellant-
claimant is allowed in the above said terms.
25. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of
accordingly.
(DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)
JUDGE
31.10.2026
Rimpal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
RIMPAL RANI
2026.10.31 15:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document