Hig High Court
Case Details
FAO-5199 99-2018 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 258 Rahmati FAO-5199-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision:09.12.2025 .&Appellant Versus Mouj Khan a Khan and others ....Respondents CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate fo ate for the appellant. Mr. DK Prajapati, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance rance Co. NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. 1. The injured-claimant/appellant peal ellant has filed the present appeal seeking enh g enhancement of the compensati ensation amount of ¹10,83,464/- awarded by ed by the learned Motor Accident Cla nt Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for short- 8the learned arned Tribunal) vide Award dated CT ated 12.04.2017, passed in MACT Petition No. n No. 1495 of 2016 dated 11.07.2016 of 7.2016 filed under Section 166 of the Motor V otor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the re that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pl of pleadings and evidence adduce that dduced before it concluded that appellant ha had suffered injuries in a motor took motor vehicular accident that took place on 05 05.06.2016 at around 10:00 A.M gent 0 A.M. due to rash and negligent driving of g of vehicle bearing registration No after on No. HR-74-A-3665 (hereinafter referred to a d to as 8the offending vehicle9) by r ; by respondent No.1-Mouj Khan; owned by by respondent No. 2-Kabir Khan; No. and insured by respondent No. 3-Insurance rance Company. Learned Tribunal aw ove nal awarded compensation as above along with i with interest @ 7.5% per annum from laim m from the date of filing the claim RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.10 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5199 99-2018 (O&M) -2- petition till a n till actual realization. Respondents N le to dents No. 1 to 3 were held liable to pay the amou e amount of compensation jointly and ly and severally. 3. Learned counsel for the appe t of e appellant seeks enhancement of compensatio nsation by submitting that in the accid llant e accident in question, the appellant has been ren en rendered 85% disabled as per Di . per Disability Certificate (Ex. P-1). The disabilit isability of the appellant has been pro e of en proved on record by evidence of PW-2 Dr. N Dr. Naseem Ahmed. Learned coun the counsel submits that due to the injuries suffe s suffered by the appellant in the accid llant e accident in question, the appellant had to under undergo above knee amputation of lef fore n of left lower limb; and is therefore unable to d to do her normal work or pursue of pursue her previous avocation of tailoring. It i
Legal Reasoning
It is contended that in these circum n of circumstances, the compensation of ¹10,83,464/ ,464/- awarded by the Tribunal is on t is on the lower side. 4. Further, learned counsel submit llant submits that income of the appellant had been tak en taken on lower side as ¹7600/- per at it per month. It is submitted that it was the clea e clear case of the appellant that she w also t she was a housewife and was also working as ng as a Tailor. No evidence in re he in rebuttal was adduced by the respondent(s dent(s) in this regard. Thus, income o ave ome of the appellant ought to have been taken a aken as that of a Skilled Worker as s of er as ¹9233/- per month in terms of Notification cation dated 05.04.2016 applicable w. the ble w.e.f. 01.01.2016, issued by the Labour Depa r Department, Haryana. Furthermore, not rmore, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any anything towards future prospects. een pects. Even less amounts have been awarded und ed under the Heads of Attendant Cha cial nt Charges, Transportation, Special Diet, Medic Medical Expenses etc. Even nothing ards othing has been awarded towards future medic medical expenses and follow-up check check-ups. RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.10 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5199 99-2018 (O&M) -3- 5. In support, learned counsel r the nsel relies upon judgment of the Hon9ble Sup le Supreme Court in Sanjay Rajpoot ers, ot vs. Ram Singh and others, Law Finder inder Doc Id # 2693665, wherein the had ein the injured-claimant therein had suffered 90% ed 90% disability; and the Hon9ble rded n9ble Supreme Court had awarded enhanced ced compensation [enhancing the c the compensation of ¹6,70,000/- (awarded by ed by the learned MACT) and ¹10,10 igh 10,10,004/- (awarded by the High Court)to ¹28 28,93,494/-], by awarding ¹1,08, ges; 1,08,000/- for Attendant Charges; ¹2,00,000/- - for Loss of Marriage Prospect; Diet spect; ¹1,00,000/- for Special Diet and Transpo ransportation; ¹3,00,000/- for Pain an ain and Suffering; and ¹5,00,000/- for Assistant sistant Device. It is, accordingly, pray l be y, prayed that the present appeal be allowed and d and the compensation may be enhan enhanced in the above terms. 6. Per Contra, learned counsel fo ance sel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company ve any vehemently opposes the submiss nsel bmissions advanced by ld. counsel for the appe e appellant and submits that in the fa the the facts and circumstances of the present case t case just and fair compensation has b lant. n has been awarded to the appellant. Accordingly dingly, learned counsel prays for dism r dismissal of the present appeal. No other argument is raised on ed on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel e in unsel and perused the case file in 7. 8. detail. 9. I find merit in the arguments a rned ents advanced on behalf of learned counsel for el for the appellant/injured-claimant. the mant. Perusal of the record of the case shows t hows that in the accident in question, ergo estion, the appellant had to undergo above knee knee amputation of left lower limb w s of limb with fracture of both bones of right leg wit eg with fracture of distal end of left r n of f left radius with mild restriction of movement a ent at left wrist joint. The appell 85% appellant had also suffered 85% RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.10 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-5199 99-2018 (O&M) -4- permanent d nent disability as established from the ; m the Disability Certificate Ex. P-1; which was p was proved from the evidence of PW f PW-2 Dr. Naseem Ahmed. 10. Further, appellant in her affidav affidavit Ex. PW-3/A had stated that she is a hous housewife was also doing work of T the rk of Tailor. It is to be noted that the respondent c dent counsel put no suggestion to co the n to controvert the assertion of the appellant tha that she was not doing work of T . As k of Tailor before the accident. As such, it is m it is my view that income of the inju ould injured-claimant/appellant should be taken as en as that of a Skilled Worker; whi ated hich, as per Notification dated 05.04.2016 a 2016 applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2016 is off ¹9233/- per month rounded off . to ¹9235/-. 11. Further, ld. Tribunal has made ture s made no addition towards future prospects. A cts. Age of the appellant was determi te of etermined to be 48 years on date of accident on nt on the basis of the Disability Cer the ty Certificate Ex. P-1. As such the appellant wa was entitled to addition of 25% t The 25% towards future prospects. The learned Trib d Tribunal has also awarded meager eager amount of ¹5000/- towards Special Di iet; ¹5000/- towards transportati portation charges; and ¹5703.32/- towards T Treatment Expenses; and only and only ¹50,000/- towards Pain and Suffering. In ing. In terms of judgment of the Ho jay he Hon9ble Apex Court in Sanjay Rajpoot (su ot (supra) (relied upon by learned , the rned counsel for the appellant), the said amoun amounts are also liable to the e the the enhanced. Accordingly, the compensatio nsation awarded to the appellant is re is re-assessed as under:- Details Income Future Pros e Prospects Before Tribunal ¹7,600/- month NIL RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.10 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. the Revised compensation per per month ¹9,235/- (rounded off) 25% ¹2308.75/- (monthly income comes to 9235+2308.75=11543.75) FAO-5199 99-2018 (O&M) -5- Yearly inco ly income iplier Multiplier anent Disability Permanent permanent p (85% ility) Disability) ¹7600x12= ¹91,200/- 13 ¹10,07,760/- ¹11543.75x12=¹1,38,525/- 13 ¹11543.75x12x13=¹18,00, 825/- [¹15,30,701.25 85% of ¹18,00,825/-] Medical Ex Attendant c cal Expenses dant charges ¹5703.32/- ¹10,000/- ¹5703.32/- ¹6000/- x 12= ¹72,000/- ial Diet portation Special D Transportat Charges and and Suffering compensation Pain and Su Total comp Interest ¹5,000/- ¹5,000/- Total ¹10, 000/- ¹50,000/- ¹10,83,464/- 7.5% per annum ¹20,000/- ¹2,00,000/- ¹18,28,404.57/- 6% 12. In view of the discussion ab l is ion above, the present appeal is allowed in th in the above terms. 13. Pending application(s), if any, s
Decision
any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025 09.12.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.10 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.