The High Court
Case Details
FAO No. 937 of 2014 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 Varinder Pal FAO No. 937 of 2014 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION :- 08.09.2025 ...Appellant Versus Upinder Parshad Dangi and others ...Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company. *** VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. CM-16879-CII-2025 The present application has been moved for revival of the appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2025. The order itself grants right to the appellants to seek revival within a period of three months. In view of this, the present application is allowed and the appeal is restored. The main case is taken up on board today itself. FAO No. 937 of 2014 1. The claimant preferred this appeal assailing the Award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana dated 26.09.2013 on the ground of inadequate compensation having been granted by assessing compensation on lower side on account of permanent disability suffered by the appellant- claimant and compensation not having been awarded under the Head of claimant availing assistance of attendant. PARVINDER SINGH 2025.09.12 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No. 937 of 2014 (O&M) 2 2. Briefly stated, appellant claimant suffered personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 of truck bearing Registration No. HR38-M-3975 on 22.11.2006. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent Insurance Company. Due to impact of accident appellant claimant suffered multiple injuries. His left leg was amputated. He was 28 years of age and on account of amputation of his left leg he was rendered unemployed and he was unable to discharge his family obligations. He remained admitted in the hospital from 22.11.2006 to 13.12.2006. During this period he needed the services of attendant and even thereafter he was required to be taken to hospital for number of times for follow up treatment. The claim petition was contested by driver, owner of the offending vehicle as well as Insurance Company and from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- “1) Whether Varinder Pal Singh injured in the alleged accident on account of rash & negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.PB-10BT-9635 and Truck No.HR-38M-3975 by respondent No.1 ? OPP 2) If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount? OPP 3) Whether respondent No.1 was having valid driving licence? OPR 4) Whether claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 5) Relief.” 3. After parties led evidence, the learned Tribunal allowed the petition and awarded compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- on account of permanent disability by taking compensation of Rs.2,000/- for every 1% disability and further he was granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- for special diet, Rs.10,000/- for hospitalization, Rs.1 lakh on account of pain and suffering and PARVINDER SINGH 2025.09.12 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No. 937 of 2014 (O&M) 3 Rs.1,99,443/- as reimbursement of the medical expenses thereby total compensation of Rs.4,39,500/- was awarded. 4. Aggrieved by the compensation so awarded, the present appeal has been preferred by claimant. 5. Notice of the appeal was accepted by counsel for the Insurance Company-respondent No. 3. 6. book. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper The only ground on which appeal is being contested is inadequacy of the compensation. Appellant claimant has been granted Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation on account of permanent disability of 60% by taking compensation of Rs.2,000/- for every 1% of the disability. Claimant has claimed that he earned Rs.20,000/- per month from transport and trading business but there is no proof of his earning any definite amount from transport and trading business. Moreover, the amputation of left leg would not totally effect the trading business. 8. Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- for 60% permanent disability suffered by the appellant-claimant, the same is totally inadequate and the compensation has been calculated by taking compensation of Rs.2,000/- for every 1% of the disability which is not the correct approach rather the Court was required to adjudged the functional disability and loss of income on account of permanent disability and by applying the multiplier and loss of future prospects the compensation should have been worked out. Since the accident took place in the year 2006 and appellant claimant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence with regard to his income at the time of accident so his income is taken as Rs.2500/- per month as was prevailing in the year 2006 for daily wages of an unskilled labourer. Age of the appellant was PARVINDER SINGH 2025.09.12 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No. 937 of 2014 (O&M) 4 28 years so multiplier of 17 is required to be applied. Since the appellant was under 40 years of age and was self employed so increase of Rs.1,000/- i.e. 40% of Rs.2500/- is to be calculated on account of future prospects and by taking the functional disability at 60% as loss of left leg would have substantially effected the workability of the appellant claimant. So functional disability of the appellant is taken equal to the actual permanent disability i.e. 60%. Therefore, loss of income on account of permanent disability comes to Rs.4,28,400/-. The claimant was reimbursed actual medical expenses and has been granted adequate compensation on account of Special and Nourishing diet, loss of income during hospitalization period and on account of pain and suffering but he has not been granted any compensation on account of having the services of attendant. Considering the income level in the year 2006, the year of accident, compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of having services of attendant appears to be justified. So same is awarded accordingly. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is allowed and compensation awarded to the appellant claimant is enhanced from Rs.4,39,400/- to Rs.7,58,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation be disbursed to the appellant claimant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as has been awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 10. Since the main appeal stands decided, the miscellaneous application(s),
Decision
if any, stand disposed of accordingly. 08.09.2025 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable PARVINDER SINGH 2025.09.12 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No