Sumit v. Satish & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Consequently, the present application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 166
Judgment
Operative part
Ms. Prerna Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for respondent No.3. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) CM No.19465-CII of 2024 This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 56 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the present application is allowed. Delay of 56 days in re-filing the present appeal, is hereby condoned. FAO No.5135 of 2024 Claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by MACT, Charkhi Dadri. DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.04.02 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.5135 of 2024 (O&M) 2
Claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of serious injuries suffered by him in a motor-vehicular accident, dated 10.10.2017 at the age of 26 years.
It has come on record that the claimant was hospitalized after accident and was operated upon 10.10.2017. On 16.10.2017, he again underwent a surgery before being discharged on 27.10.2017. He was again hospitalized on 08.01.2017 and was thereafter discharged on 12.01.2018. Disability Certificate Ex.PW-10/A was proved by examining Dr. Sunaina, PW-10. As per medical expert, the claimant is having permanent disability of 54% qua right side of moderate hemiparesis due to FT contusion with SDH and 35.6% qua hearing impairment and thus he became permanent disabled to the extent of 68.24%. The claimant was working as a Loading Supervisor with Swift Road Links Private Limited. His salary certificate, Exhibit PW-6/A has been proved. As per which, his gross salary was Rs.14,500/- per month.
Tribunal assessed compensation applying multiplier method taking functional disability of the claimant as 30% and awarded compensation as under:
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. For pain and suffering For transportation For attendant For special diet Medical bills Future loss of income due to Permanent disability Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.35,355/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,35,461/- Rs.8,87,400/- DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.04.02 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.5135 of 2024 (O&M) 3 Loss of enjoyment of life
________________________________________________ Rs.21,40,216/- Rs.22,000/- Total
In the considered opinion of this Court, the compensation needs to be re-worked in terms of ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of ‘Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd. and anr.’, 2023(1) RCR (Civil) 44.
7. The Tribunal erred in assessing the functional disability of the claimant as 30% when he has suffered permanent disability of 68.24 % as per the medical expert. Accordingly, the compensation is re-worked and re- assessed taking permanent disability of 70% of the claimant into account.
As per salary certificate proved on record as PW-6/A, the injured at the time of accident was earning Rs.14,500/- per month. Thus, his annual income comes to Rs.14,500/- X 12 = Rs.1,74,000/-. 40% future prospects need to be added. Keeping in view the age of injured at the time of accident i.e. 26 years, multiplier of 17 needs to be applied. At the prime age of 26 years, the injured has been rendered permanently disabled. On account of 70% permanent disability suffered by the claimant, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded for pain and suffering. For future medical expenses, the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. For transportation, the appellant is awarded Rs.2,00,000/-. For attendant charges, he is awarded Rs.2,50,000/-. For loss of amenities in life, appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Claimant shall also be entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.04.02 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.5135 of 2024 (O&M) 4 the date of actual realization.
Needless to say, any amount already paid to the appellant/ claimant shall be set off.
With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the instant appeal is disposed off. February 18, 2026 Dpr Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : (Pankaj Jain) Judge Yes/No Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.04.02 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, the present application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 166.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 18 Feb 2026. The bench was PANKAJ JAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.