P&H HC Raises 60%-Disabled Accident Victim’s Compensation To ₹4.72 Lakh, Rejects Insurer’s Licence Challenge

Harpal Singh was injured in a motor-vehicle accident on 16 October 1995.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, awarded him ₹1,63,000 in compensation.

The insurer appealed, arguing that the driver was not licensed to drive a Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV) at the time of the accident.

The driver’s licence originally authorized him to drive a scooter/LTV; the record also included an entry showing payment on 15 May 1995 of ₹15 for an “addition” to the licence, and later verification that the licence authorized driving an HTV.

Harpal Singh cross-objected, seeking enhanced compensation for his injuries and 60% permanent disability.

The court applied the principle that the insurer, which alleged that the driver lacked the required authorization, bore the burden of proving that defence; the Tribunal’s finding was that the insurer had not discharged that burden.

For assessing disability-related loss of earning capacity, the court considered the claimant’s functional disability, income, future prospects and the appropriate multiplier.

It relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, for adding 40% future prospects, and Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121, for applying multiplier 18.

On the licence issue, the court relied on the undisputed record of the original licence, the 15 May 1995 fee entry for an “addition,” and the later licensing-authority verification.

It held that the insurer had neither disproved the entry nor produced cogent evidence establishing that the driver lacked HTV authorization on the accident date; the Tribunal’s finding therefore warranted no interference.

On compensation, the court found that the claimant’s 60% permanent disability materially affected his earning capacity.

As his pleaded income and occupation were not proved, it adopted the 1995 minimum wage for an unskilled worker of ₹1,378 per month, treated functional disability as 60%, added 40% future prospects and applied multiplier 18.

It also awarded amounts for future amenities, treatment-period income loss, medical and related expenses, and pain and suffering.

The claimant’s cross-objections were allowed, and compensation was enhanced from ₹1,63,000 to ₹4,72,314, with interest at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the claim petition until realization.

The respondents’ liability remained as determined in the award.