Singh v. Singh & Ors.

Judgment

1. The present appeal has been file The en filed by the claimant-appellant seeking enhance nhancement of the compensation aw ion awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claim Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (here “the (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribuna ribunal”) vide award dated 02.02 02.02.2001, whereby a sum of ₹2,00,000/- alon along with interest @ 9% per annu g of r annum from the date of filing of the claim petiti petition till realization was awar awarded on account of injuries sustained by the by the appellant in a motor vehicula

997. hicular accident dated 27.04.1997. The accident occ ent occurred due to the rash and negli d negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. n No. HR-29-B-2807 by respondent N dent No.2. ANIL KUMAR 2026.04.07 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:1) FAO-1559-2001 2001

The brief facts of the case are that The 8:35 re that on 27.04.1997 at about 8:35 PM, the appella ppellant–claimant, while serving as ing as a Constable in Chandigarh Police, was retu as returning from duty as a pillion illion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No. n No. BHM-5964, driven by HC Vi C Virinder Singh, and when they reached near Ne ear New Power House, Madhya Ma rh, a ya Marg, Sector 29, Chandigarh, a truck bearing re ing registration No. HR-29-B-2807 o.2, 2807, driven by respondent No.2, came from behin behind in a rash and negligent mann t manner and struck against the said motorcycle, as e, as a result whereof the claimant aimant sustained grievous injuries leading to ampu amputation of his left leg below the ow the knee. In respect of the said accident, FIR N FIR No. 55 dated 27.04.1997 under 338 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPCwas registere gistered. The claimant was taken to e he ken to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admi admitted from 27.04.1997 to 04.06.1997 and underwent to 0 amputation on n on 02.06.1997. The claimant su ility, ant suffered permanent disability, which was asses s assessed as 91% disability of the lo the lower limb and 32% disability in relation to his to his whole body, as per the disabil d on disability certificate duly proved on record by PW1 PW1 Dr. M.S. Dhillon. In order to der to prove his case, the claimant examined himse himself as PW2, Dr. M.S. Dhillon Dhillon as PW1, who proved the disability certific certificate, and HC Virinder Singh as o the ingh as PW3, an eye-witness to the occurrence, an e, and also produced documen umentary evidence on cord. record. Respondents No nts No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex ded ex parte, whereas respondent No.3–Insurance rance Company contested the claim claim petition but did not lead any substantive evid e evidence except tendering the insu is of e insurance policy. On the basis of pleadings, the le the learned Tribunal framed seven i even issues and, after appreciating the evidence on ce on record, held that the accident h ident had occurred due to rash and ANIL KUMAR 2026.04.07 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) (cid:3)(cid:1) FAO-1559-2001 2001 negligent drivin driving of respondent No.2 and and awarded compensation of ₹2,00,000/- alon along with interest @ 9% per annu g of r annum from the date of filing of the claim petitio petition till realization, fastening the g the liability jointly and severally upon the respon espondents. Aggrieved against the af t the aforesaid award passed by the learned Tribuna ribunal, the present appeal has been s been preferred by the appellant seeking enhance hancement of the compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant Lear t the pellant-claimant submitted that the impugned awar award was wholly inadequate quate and suffered from non- consideration of ion of material evidence. It was cont contended that the appellant had proved on recor record, through cogent evidence, th nce, that he had sustained grievous injuries in the the accident dated 27.04.1997. T in a 997. These injuries resulted in a traumatic below below-knee amputation with partial nee, partial ankylosis of the left knee, leading to signi significant permanent disability. T lity. The claimant relied upon the testimony of PW of PW1, Dr. M.S. Dhillon, and the nd the disability certificate, which reflected 91% di 1% disability of the lower limb. Ref b. Reference was also made to the medical records cords from PGI Chandigarh, which hich established that the appellant was hospitalized talized from 27.04.1997 to 04.06.19 .06.1997, during which period the amputation surg n surgery was conducted on 02.06. 02.06.1997. Furthermore, it was argued that the l t the learned Tribunal had erred in in law by ignoring the estimate for an artificial l ficial limb (Mark ‘A’) and by wrong wrongly denying medical expenses based on a mer a mere presumption of reimburseme ursement. Learned counsel further contended that that no evidence was led by the y the respondents to prove such reimbursement, ment, and the claimant had categor ategorically denied receiving any reimbursement f ment from the department. It was em as emphasized as a settled position ANIL KUMAR 2026.04.07 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) (cid:4)(cid:1) FAO-1559-2001 2001 of law that me at medical expenses may be award e of awarded even in the absence of specific bills, de depending upon the facts and cir The and circumstances of the case. The appellant further further asserted that the compensatio te as ensation was grossly inadequate as the Tribunal had had failed to properly assess non non-pecuniary damages, including pain and sufferin uffering, loss of amenities, and the in life. the inability to lead a normal life. It was argued tha that the Tribunal had omitted to g to grant any future prospects and other relevant h vant heads, thereby rendering the aw ly, it the award unjust. Consequently, it was prayed that that the appeal be allowed, the co the compensation be enhanced in accordance with e with the principles laid down in N National Insurance Company Limited v. Pran PranaySethi and Others(2017) 16 7) 16 SCC 680, and the rate of te of interest be increa increased from 9% to 18% per annum In r annum in the interest of justice. In support of his f his contentions, the appellant ha nt has placed reliance upon Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Ajay Kumar &Anr., (2011) 1 SCC vs. 1 SCC 343; PappuDeo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar ar &Ors., (2020) 14 SCC 715; R R. Valli&Ors. vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport sport Corporation Ltd., (2022) 5 @ 22) 5 SCC 107; Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara jara vs. Shyam Singh Varma &Or &Ors., (2019) 15 SCC 354; and National Insura surance Co. Ltd. vs. Sukhdev Sin 2013 v Singh &Ors., FAO-3690-2013 (O&M), decide ecided on 12.03.2026 (P&H High High Court), wherein it has been held that just co just compensation must be awarded d its arded considering disability and its impact, along wi ong with appropriate interest; hence, t ence, the impugned award deserves enhancement.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for Per l for respondent No.3–Insurance Company has co contended that the impugned aw ned award did not suffer from any illegality or perv r perversity and had been passed aft al as ed after due appreciation of oral as ANIL KUMAR 2026.04.07 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) (cid:5)(cid:1) FAO-1559-2001 2001 well as docume ocumentary evidence. It was conte contended that the appellant had failed to substan ubstantiate the claim for enhancemen cement by leading reliable evidence and the learne learned Tribunal had already gr dy granted just and reasonable compensation. tion. Learned counsel further argu argued that the rate of interest awarded was in consonance with settled law led law and did not warrant any upward revision vision. It was maintained that the fin the findings of the learned Tribunal were well-reaso reasoned and did not call for any ourt. r any interference by this Court. Consequently, it ntly, it was prayed that the appeal, be eal, being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for I ha sel for the parties and have gone through the rec e record with their assistance. The e. The controversy in the present appeal lies in a n in a narrow compass. The question t on is stion that arises for consideration is whether the com he compensation awarded by the le the learned Tribunal satisfies the requirement of ‘ nt of ‘just compensation’ under Sectio r Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, partic particularly in view of the permane rmanent disability suffered by the claimant and its pacity. nd its impact on his earning capacity.

6. It is well settled law that in cases It is , the cases of permanent disability, the assessment of t of compensation cannot be con e of e confined to the percentage of medical disabilit isability alone, but must extend to the d its to the functional disability and its impact on the e the earning capacity of the claim claimant. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 11) 1 SCC 343,the Hon’ble Supre t the Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal must as ust assess the effect of disability on ity on the earning capacity keeping in view the nat he nature of avocation of the injur , the injured. In the present case, the claimant, at the at the time of accident, was serv s serving as a Constable in the ANIL KUMAR 2026.04.07 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) (cid:6)(cid:1) FAO-1559-2001 2001 Chandigarh Pol h Police Department, a post invo t involving considerable physical activity includin cluding mobility, patrolling and fi and field duties. Loss of earning capacity is not is not synonymous with loss of a s of actual income, but includes diminished effic d efficiency, restricted functional ab t on nal ability and adverse impact on future prospects. spects. Due to the amputation, the cl le to the claimant is evidently unable to perform his du is duties with the same efficiency iency as prior to the accident. However, there there is no evidence before this e this Court to suggest that the amputation had a n had any diminishing effect on the in the income of the appellant or that he was demoted moted from the post he was holding dent. olding at the time of the accident. Although the ind the individual may not be able to ef to efficiently perform field duties on account of th t of the amputation, he remains capab s capable of discharging alternative responsibilities. lities. He may suitably be assigne ssigned clerical work at a police station or police police headquarters, or be entrusted usted with other duties of a similar nature, such as ch as handling emergency calls or a ls or attending to communication- related tasks wit ks within the police department. Nev f the Nevertheless, this Court is of the opinion that the at the injuries suffered by the appell r his appellant will certainly hamper his promotional pro al prospects, which will, in turn, ha n his rn, have an adverse impact on his post-retirement p ment pensionary benefits. Therefore refore, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to e to grant a sum of ₹10,00,000/ ,000/-towards the loss of future promotional pros al prospects and post-retirement pens t pensionary benefits.

7. Insofar as medical expenses are Inso s are concerned, no documentary evidence in the in the form of medical bills has been as been produced on record by the claimant to sub to substantiate the expenditure incu The re incurred during treatment. The claimant, being being a government employee servin lice, serving in the Chandigarh Police, ANIL KUMAR 2026.04.07 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) (cid:7)(cid:1) FAO-1559-2001 2001 would ordinarily inarily be entitled to medical reimbur ent. eimbursement from the department. In the absence o ence of any cogent evidence to the c the contrary, and keeping in view the record, no am , no amount is awarded under this he re of this head. Considering the nature of the injuries, part s, particularly the amputation of the l f the leg, and the prolonged period of treatment an ent and mental agony undergone b one by the claimant, the amount awarded by the y the learned Tribunal under the he g' is the head of 'Pain and Suffering' is found to be inad e inadequate and is hereby enhanced anced to ₹1,00,000/-. The claimant would also have o have incurred expenses towards s ards special diet and conveyance during the peri e period of treatment and recove recovery; accordingly, a sum of ₹75,000/- each is heads. each is awarded under the said heads

8. The evidence on record, includin The e led luding the additional evidence led pursuant to the to the remand of the matter to th to the learned Tribunal, further establishes that s that the claimant has incurred su red substantial expenditure on the prosthetic limb. limb. PW-4 Sanjay Kumar proved proved that the claimant incurred ₹45,750/- in 20 2013, ₹25,000/- in 2021 and and ₹2,80,000/- in 2024 towards prosthetic limb a limb and its replacement. The eviden evidence also establishes that such prosthesis requir requires periodic replacement every , the every 5–6 years. Accordingly, the claimant is held s held entitled to ₹3,50,750/- towar towards the cost of artificial limb already incurred curred.

9. It is apparent from the evidence on It is nce on record by way of additional evidence, that that a prosthetic limb requires quires periodic replacement and maintenance. Th ce. The claimant is thus bound to nd to incur recurring expenditure throughout his t his lifetime. Accordingly, a sum a sum of ₹5,00,000/- is awarded towards future uture medical expenses relating to ng to prosthetic limb. Due to the ANIL KUMAR 2026.04.07 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) (cid:8)(cid:1) FAO-1559-2001 2001 permanent disab t disability and amputation, the cla s of the claimant has suffered loss of amenities of lif of life and is unable to enjoy th . joy the normal pleasures of life. Accordingly, a s ly, a sum of ₹2,00,000/- is awarded t rded to the claimant under the head of loss of amenit amenities of life.

10. In view of the foregoing discus In v discussion, this Court is of the considered opin opinion that the compensation of on of ₹2,00,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal ibunal is wholly inadequate and does nt of d does not meet the requirement of ‘just compensat pensation’. Accordingly, the present resent appeal is allowed, and the compensation is tion is re-determined and enhanced anced to ₹23,00,750/-, which shall be payable by Re by Respondent No. 3 – the Insuranc surance Company.

11. The enhanced amount of compensa The e the pensation, i.e., over and above the amount awarded arded by the learned Tribunal, shal te of l, shall carry interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum annum from the date of filing o l its ling of the claim petition till its realization. Con . Consequently, the impugned aw ed award passed by the learned Tribunal stands stands modified to the aforesaid l is esaid extent, and the appeal is accordingly allow ly allowed.

12. All pending miscellaneous applica All pplications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as t er as to costs.

02.04 2026 ANIL KUMAR 2026.04.07 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) (AMARIN ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : : Yes/No (cid:9)(cid:1)