The High Court
Case Details
IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH No. 3110 of 2016 (O&M) FAO N Reserv Pronou eserved On: 15.10.2025 ronounced On: 04.11.2025 Sunita Dev a Devi Aman Ahla Ahlawat and others Versus ...Appellant ...Respondents CORAM: AM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Mr. Deepak Singh Saini, Adv Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocate for the appellant-claimant. i, Advocate with vocate Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insuran surance Company. **** HARKESH KESH MANUJA, J. By way of present appeal, ch al, challenge came to be laid to an award d ard dated 05.12.2015 passed by th by the learned Motor Accident Claims Trib s Tribunal, Ambala (for brevity, “th ity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of nt of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded arded as compensation to the appellant/cl llant/claimant along with interest @ @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing filing the claim petition till the date date of its actual realization. FACTS [2] Appellant-Sunita Devi being being injured, filed a claim petition be n before the learned Tribunal ibunal praying for grant of compensati ensation on account of injuries su ies suffered by her in a motor vehicular a ular accident which took place on on 03.12.2012 while alleging rash and n and negligent driving of respondent N dent No.1/driver. DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.04 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -2- [3] After going through the claim petition and evaluating the
Legal Reasoning
evidence led by both the parties, learned Tribunal vide award dated 05.12.2015, arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver and awarded compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Heads of Claim Permanent disability Medical Treatment 1. 2. 3. Diet and nutrition, pain and sufferings Rs. 15,000/- and transportation etc. Total Rs. 1,50,000/- Amount (in Rs.) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 35,000/- Further, liability was fastened upon the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally, but was to be indemnified by the Insurance Company. [4] Being aggrieved against the aforesaid award dated 05.12.2015, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition and the issue regarding negligence of the driver been recorded in favour of the appellant/claimant by the learned Tribunal being not in dispute, therefore, for the sake of brevity, those are not being repeated here. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT/CLAIMANT [5] Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the appellant/claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 100%, however, pursuant to the directions issued by this DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.04 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -3- Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.10.2025, the appellant was examined afresh by the Medical Board constituted by the office of the Civil Surgeon, Ambala, which, in its report, assessed the permanent disability to the extent of 40%, thus learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 1,00,000 towards permanent disability. He also argued that the appellant had also spent a huge amount on special diet, transportation etc. however, learned Tribunal granted compensation for transportation, nutritious diet and non-pecuniary heads on the lower side and the same is, therefore, liable to be enhanced. ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No. 3/INSURANCE COMPANY [6] Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company vehemently argued that the appellant has been adequately compensated, thus, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND REASONING [7] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I find force in the arguments
Legal Reasoning
advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. ON THE ASPECT OF ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ASSESSMENT HOSPITALIZATION” EXPENSES “MEDICAL UNDER / [8] To prove her case, appellant/claimant tendered in evidence her affidavit as Ex.PW3/A, MLR report as Ex.PW-4/C, discharge card as Ex.PW-4/D, medical bills and receipts as Ex.P-5 DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.04 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -4- as well as Ex.P-7 to P-71 besides Ex. PW-5/A and Mark ‘X’ as disability certificate. [8.1] In the present case, appellant/claimant had suffered from hemiparesis, resulting weakness of the muscles on the right side of the body. Even though appellant could produce few medical bills and receipts only (Ex.P-5, Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-71) but keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and the follow-up treatment besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, the compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The aforesaid view finds force from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of accident, a person cannot be presumed to be vigilant enough to collect all the bills for claim/reimbursement purposes, thus, compensation under this head is assessed as Rs. 1,00,000/-. ASSESSMENT UNDER “LOSS OF INCOME” [9] Learned Tribunal failed to assess loss of income of injured on the ground that the appellant failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to prove her income. However, it is an admitted fact that the appellant was 36 years of age at the time of accident and a housewife; in this regard, in case of “Mohni Devi Thakur vs. Manjit Singh”, reported as 2021(1) RCR CIVIL 737, this Court assessed the notional income of housewife @ Rs.7,500/- per month while awarding compensation in relation to an accident dated 24.05.2013. DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.04 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -5- [9.1] Even in the case of “National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dhan Singh” reported as 2019 (3) PLR 301, notional income of housewife was assessed @ Rs. 11,000/- per month by this Court while awarding compensation in relation to an accident dated 20.09.2017. [9.2] Therefore, the notional income of housewife needs to be considered keeping in mind multifarious services rendered by her for the family; the expenses for cook service, maid servant service, housekeeping expenses and keeping in mind the savings accrued due to all these services. Even the invaluable emotional support and the contribution of housewife to her husband, children and in- laws, cannot be assessed in terms of money. Further, a perusal of disability certificate (Mark ‘X’) of the injured shows that she suffered 40% disability due to injuries sustained by her in the accident. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, this Court in its humble opinion and after giving anxious thought to the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein the victim is fortunately alive but suffered 40% disability, conservatively assesses the notional income of the appellant/claimant @ 8,500/- per month. Evidently the motor vehicular accident in the present case took place on 03.12.2012 and as per Ex.PW3/A, appellant also received medical treatment for accident related injuries after her discharge from the hospital and was bed-ridden for a year. Thus, considering the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment and recuperation, it DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.04 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -6- can safely be inferred that the appellant was incapacitated from performing her routine household duties and other daily chores during the said period. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the loss of income for the aforesaid period is assessed on a conservative estimate at Rs.1,01,996.88/- (Rs. 278.69 x 366 days), which is rounded off to Rs.1,02,000/-. Also, while adjudicating upon the issue of compensation under the head of “loss of future income,” it is observed that, in the absence of any cogent evidence on record establishing the permanent disability of the appellant/claimant, no amount can be awarded under the said head. ASSESSMENT UNDER “OTHER PECUNIARY HEADS” [10] Admittedly, the injured was bed-ridden as she had suffered from hemiparesis and would have definitely gone for her post-operative care. Thus, compensation granted for special diet, conveyance charges and attendant charges @ 15,000/- is very less. Therefore, compensation granted under these heads is re- assessed @ Rs. 1,00,000/-. ASSESSMENT UNDER “NON-PECUNIARY HEADS” [11] In the present motor vehicular accident, appellant/claimant suffered injuries for which she went into the phase of obtaining treatment. In injury cases compensation for mental agony as well as pain and suffering cannot be assessed with mathematical certainty and the fact that no amount of compensation can restore the injured person’s physical frame and DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.04 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -7- eradicate or ameliorate the agony suffered by the injured, therefore, the compensation under this head is reassessed as Rs. 70,000/-. CONCLUSION [12] In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for grant of compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Nature 1. 2. 3. under Amount (in Rs.) Loss of Income Rs. 1,02,000/- Medical Expenses/Hospitalization Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Compensation pecuniary heads Compensation pecuniary heads Rs. 3,72,000/- Total Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. 2,22,000/- Enhanced Compensation Rs. 70,000/- under other non- 4. [13] The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Naryana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.04 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -8- from today. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. [14] In view of the aforesaid modification, the present
Decision
appeal stands disposed off. [15] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed off. November 04, 2025 ‘dk kamra’ ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Whether Reportable : Yes Yes No No DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.04 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document