Fao No. 1660 of 2003 · Punjab Jab And Haryana High Court · 2026

The prese present appeal has been preferred ferred by the claimant–appellant seeking en ing enhancement of compensation aw ion awarded by the learned Motor Accident C ident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (here l (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tr ed Tribunal”), vide award dated 07.1

07.12.2002, whereby a sum of Rs.1,47,00 ,47,000/- along with interest @ 9% 9% per annumwas granted on account of unt of injuries sustained by him in im in a motor vehicular accident dated 30.0

30.04.1999. Briefly sta fly stated, the claimant was travelling velling from Ateli to Narnaul in a Tata 407 b 407 bearing registration No. HR-46/1 46/1648 (hereinafter mentioned as TATA ATA 407) along with his brothers, thers, after closing their business premises. T ises. The said vehicle was being driv g driven at a moderate speed and ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2003 003 2 on the corr he correct side of the road by respond spondent no.5 named as Satyapal. When the n the vehicle reached near Tajpur Tajpur turning, a truck bearing registration stration No. HRM-3697, being driven driven by respondent No.1 named as Chiranji hiranjilal, came from the opposite dire ite direction at a high speed and in a rash and sh and negligent manner and struck struck against the Tata 407, as a result of t of which the vehicle overturned. urned. In the said accident, the claimant T ant Tarachand sustained multiple in iple injuries and was immediately taken to C n to Civil Hospital, Narnaul for treatm treatment. It is the specific case of the claima claimant that the accident occurred du rred due to the rash and negligent driving of ing of the offending vehicles by respo respondent No.1 and respondent No.5, both , both of whom are alleged to be to be equally responsible for the occurrence rrence. Hence, the present claim p laim petition was filed seeking compensat pensation under the Motor Vehicles A cles Act, 1988.

Upon noti n notice, the respondents appeared peared and contested the claim petition. R ion. Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 fi nd 7 filed their written statements and contes contested the matter, whereas respon respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6 were proceeded eeded against Ex-Parte. Thereafter, t fter, the learned Tribunal framed the necess necessary issues and, upon appreciat preciation of the oral as well as documenta mentary evidence on record, partly all rtly allowed the claim petition and awarded a rded a sum of ₹1,47,000/- along with g with interest @ 9% per annum. The liabili liability to pay the awarded compen pensation was fastened jointly and severa severally upon respondent Nos. 1, 2 . 1, 2 and 4. Dissatisfied with the impugned ugned award, the appellant has filed t filed this appeal for enhancement of compen ompensation. ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2003 003 3

Learned co

ned counsel for the appellant-claiman laimant contended that on the day of the acc he accident, the appellant and his tw his two brothers were travelling from Ateli Ateli to Narnaul in a Tata-407 (No 7 (No. HR-46-1648). When they reached n hed near Village Tajpur, a truck (N uck (No. HRM-3697) driven by respondent ondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent m gent manner hit their vehicle from the opposi opposite side. Furthermore, this collis collision caused the Tata-407 to overturn, turn, resulting in serious injuries t ries to all occupants including appellant. llant. In addition to this, it was em emphasized that the learned unal, Tribunal, through its award dated ted 07.12.2002, correctly held respondent ondent No. 1 responsible for the accid accident and decided the issue of negligence igence in favor of the appellant. Cons Consequently, while the finding on neglige egligence was correct, the appellant h llant has filed this appeal because the compe compensation of Rs.

1,47,000/- awarde awarded by thelearned Tribunal is insufficien cient and needs to be increased and d and warrants enhancement. It is further su er submitted that the appellant wa nt was taken to Civil Hospital, Narnaul, f aul, from the place of occurrence an nce and medico-legally examined vide MLR MLR PW1/C. Thereafter, keeping in ing in view his serious injuries, he was remo removed to Sawai Man Singh H ngh Hospital, Jaipur, where he remained ained admitted for a long period. He d. He also received treatment at Gautam H tam Hospital, Joshi Hospital, Parma Parmar Hospital, Saini Hospital, Dr.Rajinde ajinderNarula’s Hospital, Dr. Bajaj Bajaj Clinic, Eye Hospital of Dr.Mukesh ukeshGoel, Hospital of Dr.Rathi, Ho thi, Hospital of Dr. Vijay Yadav, Raj Hospi Hospital and of Dr.Ansuya. He was e was operated upon for his nose and jaws. H jaws. He spent about Rs. 1,00,000/- on on his treatment. Besides that, he had em ad employed an attendant @ Rs.1,00 s.1,000/- per month to look after ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2003 003 4 him.

The a . The appellant proved on record that th that there was fracture of maxilla, left mendi mendile and zygena and was operate perated upon for the said injuries. He develo developed disability to the extent of 1 nt of 10%. That in support of his expenditur nditure, he has produced on record t cord the available bills, vouchers etc. That That the learned Tribunal has has awarded only a sum of Rs.1,47,00 ,47,000/-, which is highly on lower lower side. The learned Tribunal awarded R rded Rs.4,203/- on account of medic medical bills, transport charges, telephone hone charges and special diet; Rs. t; Rs.40,000/- were awarded on account of unt of permanent disability; Rs.50,000 50,000/- were awarded on account of pain and ain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- were were awarded on account of loss of income income. However, no amount was t was awarded on account of employme loyment of attendant. That the amo amount awarded under various heads was s was not sufficient and adequate k uate keeping in view the amount spent by t by the appellant on his treatment atment under various heads, the permanent anent disability suffered by him, the im, the pain and suffering due to multiple fr tiple fractures and treatment received eived for a longer period and the loss of inc of income. Therefore, it was prayed rayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be increased to ed to Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest, so est, so that the appellant gets the actua e actual relief he deserves.

Per contra contra, learned counsel for respondent ondent No. 4 (National Insurance Company) pany) and respondent No. 7 (United nited India Insurance Company) contended ended that the impugned award does n does not suffer from any illegality or perversi erversity and has been passed after due ter due appreciation of oral as well as docume ocumentary evidence. It was submi submitted that the appellant has failed to s d to substantiate the claim for enhan enhancement by leading reliable ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2003 003 5 evidence. ence. It is maintained that the findin findings recorded by the learned Tribunal a unal are well-reasoned and do not call ot call for any interference by this

Court. Co rt. Consequently, it is prayed that th that the appeal, being devoid of merit, dese it, deserves dismissal. Having co ing considered the rival submission issions and upon a meticulous perusal of sal of the record, with the able assist assistance of learned counsel for the parties parties, this Court is of the consider nsidered view that the impugned award date rd dated 07.12.2002, passed by learn learned Tribunal, does not fully conform to orm to the settled principles of law g law governing just and equitable compensat pensation to the appellant-claimant. At the out he outset, it is noticed that the findi finding recorded by the learned Tribunal o unal on the issue of negligence has n has not been assailed before this Court and, rt and, thus, has attained finality. Even . Even otherwise, the said finding stands dul ds duly substantiated from the reco e record. The copy of FIR (Ex.

01.05.1999 99 to 07.05.1999 .

Regarding arding the compensation for disabili isability, the record includes the original d inal disability certificate (Ex. PW . PW4/6), which confirms the permanent anent impact of these injuries. How However, it is noted that the appellant d llant did not place on record any docu y documentary evidence regarding his exact m xact monthly income at the time of th e of the accident. Consequently, in the absenc absence of such vital records, the lear he learned Tribunal was forced to estimate th ate the compensation. Building upon upon this, while the injuries were severe, the re, the learned Tribunal awarded a s ed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on the disability h bility head. However, the record is s d is silent regarding the monthly ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2003 003 7 income of me of the appellant at the time of the of the accident. In the absence of these vital e vital parameters, the structured formu formula laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay K ay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 cannot be strictly applied. Consequen sequently, the learned Tribunal w nal was required to make an assessmen ssment based on the nature of the inj the injuries and the impact on the quality of ity of life. Considering the accident o ident occurred in 1999, the award of ₹40,000 40,000/- under the head of disability i bility is found to be a realistic and balanced a nced assessment. This Court finds no ds no reason to interfere with this portion of ion of the award, as it provides ides fair compensation for the permanent anent impact of the injuries in the abs he absence of financial proof.

The appel appellant has duly proved the expe expenditure incurred during the course of t se of treatment through documentary ntary evidence. The medical bills and cash m cash memos pertaining to purchase of ase of medicines, exhibited as Ex. P2–P3 (tw P3 (twice), Ex. P9–P16, Ex. P24–P4 P45, Ex. P50–P59 (Ex. P57 twice), E e), Ex. P62–P71 (Ex. P64 twice), Ex. ), Ex. P74–P80, Ex. P89, Ex. P93, Ex. P94 P94 and Ex. P130–P139 (Ex. P1 x. P131 twice), substantiate an expenditur nditure of ₹13,847.42/- towards m rds medicines. In addition, the claimant h ant has proved travel tickets Ex. P5 Ex. P5–P8, Ex. P17–P23 and Ex. P107–P1 P129 (₹1,678/-), vehicle receipts Ex Ex. P139 and Ex. P141–P146 (₹10,250/ ,250/-), telephone bills Ex. P46–P49 P49 (₹41.30), and special diet bills (milk (milk and juice) Ex. P140–P148 and E 8 and Ex. P60–P61 (₹12,023/- and ₹2,190/- respectively). The learned Tribun Tribunal, upon appreciation of the said mater material, has awarded a consolidated idated sum of ₹42,030/- under the heads of s of medical, transport, telephone hone and special diet expenses. However, ever, upon re-appraisal of the entire entire record, this Court finds that ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2003 003 8 the said a said amount does not adequately re tely reflect the pecuniary losses actually s ally suffered by the appellant. lant. The evidence on record demonstra onstrates t the appellant remained hospitalized

01.05.1999

5.1999 to 07.05.1999 and thereaf hereafter continued to undergo treatment, ment, which necessarily entailed rep ed repeated visits, special dietary requiremen irements and incidental expenses, ma es, many of which, by their very nature, can re, cannot be strictly supported by do by documentary proof. It is well settled tha ed that compensation under Section ction 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 1988, is required to be just, fair and air and reasonable, and cannot be confined ined to the exact amount of bills f bills produced on record. In Abhimany anyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sek Sekhon (2022) 8 SCC 489, the Hon’ble ’ble Supreme Court has recognize ognized that expenses towards attendant dant care and future treatment ar ent are integral components of compensat pensation in cases involving prolong rolonged incapacity. Keeping in view the n the nature of injuries, duration of tr n of treatment and the cumulative effect of th of the documentary evidence, this C this Court deems it appropriate to reassess th sess the pecuniary compensation. Ac on. Accordingly, the appellant is held entit entitled to ₹30,000/- towards me ds medical expenses, ₹10,000/- towards at rds attendant charges, ₹10,000/- tow towards special diet, ₹10,000/- towards tr rds transportation, ₹15,000/- towar towards loss of income during treatment, ment, and ₹10,000/- towards future future medical expenses, thereby ensuring a ring a fair and reasonable recompe compense for the losses directly arising from ng from the accident.

The learne learned Tribunal has awarded a sum a sum of ₹50,000/- towards pain and suffer suffering which, in the facts and cir nd circumstances of the case, is ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2003 003 9 found to b d to be just and reasonable and is acco is accordingly affirmed. However, it is well well settled that compensation m tion must also encompass non- pecuniary niary losses such as loss of ameni amenities and diminution in the quality of ity of life. In Sri Benson George v. R e v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd., (2022) 13 SCC 142, the Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that such l such losses cannot be assessed mecha mechanically and must reflect the nature and re and extent of suffering. Consideri sidering the appellant’s grievous injuries, pr ries, prolonged treatment and consequ onsequent hardship, a further sum of₹10,000 0,000/- is awarded towards loss of ss of amenities of life. The total compensat pensation shall, accordingly, stand rev nd revised.

The enhan enhanced amount of compensation sation, i.e., over and above the amount aw unt awarded by the learned Tribunal, s unal, shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% pe .5% per annum from the date of filing f filing of the claim petition till its realization zation.

All pendin pending miscellaneous applications, if ons, if any, stand disposed of. (AMARIN ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE May,06, 2026 Anil Whether speaking/reasoned : ned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No : ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1660-2003 003 10 (cid:1) (cid:1) ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document