Punjab-Haryana High Court
Doodh Nath Parshad vs Avtar Singh And Ors. on 25 March, 2026
FAO-3793-2010
115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-
FAO-3793-
3793-2010
2010 (O&M)
Date of decision : 25.03.2026
25.03.2026
Doodh Nath Parshd ...Appellant
Versus
Avtar Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present: Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate,
for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. N.P. Chandel, A.A.G., Haryana.
None for respondent No.4-Insurance Company.
HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J.
CM-
CM-16328- 16328-CII-
CII-2010
1. Prayer in the application is for condonation of delay of 423 days in filing the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant sustained multiple injuries on his person on account of the accident. The applicant was under the impression that limitation would start running when he received the compensation amount, however, upon enquiry from his counsel, he was informed to file an appeal, as such, the present appeal was filed. It is contended that the delay has occurred on ATUL SETHI 2026.04.07 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh 1 FAO-3793-2010 account of misimpression of the applicant, who is a labour and was under
the wrong belief.
3. The respondents have not filed any reply to the application, however, opposed the prayer.
4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal should be heard on merits. The applicant is an uneducated labourer; his leg was amputated; as such, he should not be non-suited on account of the technicalities of limitation.
5. Consequently, present application is allowed and delay of 423 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Main case
6. The appellant-injured has assailed the Award dated 01.09.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar (for short, the 'Tribunal'), seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.
7. As per the brief facts, on 13.02.2006, the appellant was going from Camp Yamuna Nagar to his place of work, i.e. Indian Sugar and General Engineering Corporation, Yamuna Nagar, by driving his motorcycle. At about 4:20 p.m., when he reached the Sugar Mill Colony, Yamuna Nagar, a Police Jeep bearing registration No.HR-02E-5741, which was being rashly and negligently driven by respondent No.1, hit the injured. Resultantly, the injured fell and sustained multiple injuries. ATUL SETHI 2026.04.07 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh 2 FAO-3793-2010 7.1 The injured was taken to Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. As per the testimony of PW-1, Dr. Vandana, the injured was found having a lacerated wound in parietal area (head), crushed injury over the right lower leg with both bones crushed and a lacerated wound over right forehead. As per the testimony of PW-2, Vijay Kumar, the injured suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70% on account of amputation of right leg below knee. As per the documents, the injured remained hospitalized w.e.f. 13.02.2006 to 01.03.2006 and was bed- ridden upto 30.06.2006.
7.2 FIR bearing No. 121 dated 16.02.2006 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar.
7.3 The injured preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him on account of the accident.
7.4 The claim petition was contested by the driver, owners and insurer of the Police Jeep.
7.5 The Tribunal has held that respondent No.1, while driving the Police Jeep on the wrong side, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the injured and caused the accident.
7.6 The Tribunal awarded the following compensation to the injured:-
Medical bills - 26,000/-
Loss of income during treatment - Rs.22,000/-
ATUL SETHI Pain and suffering - 1,50,000/-
2026.04.07 17:23
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh 3
FAO-3793-2010
Loss of future income - 1,92,000/-
Artificial Limb - 46,000/-
Total - Rs.4,36,000/-
Rs.4,36,000/-
8. Learned counsel for the injured-appellant contends that the Tribunal has assessed the disability of the injured to the extent of 70% only, however, the injured is unable to work and he has become permanently disabled, as such, the disability ought to have been treated as 100% while calculating the disability. Cites Sanjay Rajpoot Vs. Ram Singh & Ors., 2025 SCC Online SC 285.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contend that the disability was only of one part of the body and not of the entire body, as such, compensation has been rightly determined by the Tribunal.
10. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the paper-book.
11. The principles for assessment of damages in an injury case examined in various decisions, have been summed up by Hon'ble Apex Court in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and another, 2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 238, as follows : -
"12. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guesswork and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made.
13.McGregor's Treatise on Damages, 14th Edition, Para 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states:
"The person physically injured may recover both for his ATUL SETHI pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of these the 2026.04.07 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh 4 FAO-3793-2010 pecuniary losses themselves comprise two separate items viz. the loss of earnings and other gains which the plaintiff would have made had he not been injured and the medical and other expenses to which he is put as a result of the injury, and the courts have sub-divided the non-pecuniary losses into three categories viz. pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life."
14. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi [Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, (1979) 4 SCC 365 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 996 : 1980 ACJ 55] , this Court held : (SCC p. 366, para 2) "2. ... the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales."
15. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] , dealing with the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court held thus : (SCC p. 556, para 9) "9. Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant : (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include : (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for 17 loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, ATUL SETHI 2026.04.07 17:23 frustration and mental stress in life." I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh 5
FAO-3793-2010
16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161] , this Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries : (SCC p. 348, para 6) "6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life."
17. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 279 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 638] , this Court held as follows : (SCC p. ATUL SETHI 2026.04.07 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and 276, para 2) authenticity of this document Chandigarh 6 FAO-3793-2010 "2. ... There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.""
19. This Court, in the said case, thereafter, formulated various heads such as loss of earnings, expenses related to treatment, attendant charges, pain and suffering and loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects, future medical treatment. Ultimately, this Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the High Court from Rs. 25,78,501/- to Rs.62,27,000/-."
Functional disability
12. As per the facts on record, the injured was 25 years of age at the time of the accident. At the time of the accident, he was working on the post of Gas Cutter. As per the medical evidence on record proved by PW-1, Dr. Vandana, the injured had crushed injury over the right lower leg with both bones badly crushed.
12.1 Though, the permanent disability has been assessed as 70% due to amputation of his right leg below knee, but it is noticed that prior to the accident, the injured was working on the post of Gas Cutter and doing the work of a Welder. At the time of the accident, age of the claimant was 25 years. He remained hospitalized w.e.f. 13.02.2006 to 01.03.2006 and remained bed-ridden upto 30.06.2006. It has also come on record that his services were terminated being unsatisfactory, on 31.10.2005, prior to the accident, which took place on 13.02.2006. This ATUL SETHI 2026.04.07 17:23 fact has been proved by the testimony of PW-5, Surinder Kumar. The I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh 7 FAO-3793-2010 Tribunal has also noticed that there is no record of employment after 31.10.2005. As per the certificate, Ex.P-36, the injured was a trained worker in the trade of welding from I.T.I. Yamuna Nagar. Thus, the totality of these circumstances clearly indicate that the injured was a skilled Welder and on account of the accident, he is not able to perform the said work after the accident. Though the injured is able to perform some other kind of work, but he is not very educated, so there are very few chances that he would be re-employed for any desk work.
13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sanjay Rajpoot's case (supra), considering the injury suffered by the claimant therein, i.e. amputation of right leg above knee, assessed the disability of the claimant as 90%. The relevant observations by the Hon'ble Apex Court are as under:-
"10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No.3 - the insurer has not entered appearance. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the functional disability suffered by him and also the determination of his age. The Claimant-Appellate is not salaried, but is self- employed running and managing his own business. For the Appellant to be able to effectively run his business, he is definitely required to move around. This has been hampered significantly by his amputation, which proves that the functional disability of the Appellant will severely impact his earning capacity. Therefore, the correct view would be to assess the disability of the Claimant- Appellant as 90%."
14. In view of the above facts & circumstances as well as the ratio of the decision in Sanjay Rajpoot's case (supra), the functional disability of the injured in the present case is assessed as 90%. ATUL SETHI 2026.04.07 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh 8 FAO-3793-2010
15. As per the Salary Certificate, Ex.P-33, the salary of the injured was Rs.7117.76 per month uptill 31.10.2005 (when his services were terminated). Although, there is no proof of income of the injured after 31.10.2005, but keeping in view the admitted position that he was a trained Welder from I.T.I. Yamuna Nagar, this Court has no hesitation to assess the income of the injured as Rs.7120/- per month, as such, compensation on account of loss of future income due to functional disability is to be assessed on the basis of the said monthly income. Attendant charges
16. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harman XOBJC--50 Singh Dhanoa and others, FAO No.263 of 2014 with XOBJC 50--CII CII--
2014, decided on 20.01.2025, while determining the 'attendant charges', has observed as under:-
"For assessing the attendant charges reliance can be placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Kajal v. Jagdish Chand", reported as (2020) 4 SCC 413, wherein it was held that in cases where attendant is required even after discharge from the hospital, multiplier method could be used for making the assessment. Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder: -
"22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court @ Rs. 2,500/- per month for 44 years, which works out to Rs. 13,20,000/-. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When compensation is awarded in lump sum, various factors are taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court has always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier system should be followed not only for determining the compensation on account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges etc. This system was recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor ATUL SETHI 2026.04.07 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 Supreme Court authenticity of this document Chandigarh 9 FAO-3793-2010
1. The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant, and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier method has been recognised as the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in award of `just compensation' within the meaning of the Act."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon, reported as (2022) 8 SCC 489 while keeping in mind the nature of injuries and growing age of the injured granted two attendants for 12 hours each as he required all time attendants for his daily routine works. Relevant para No. 23 is reproduced herewith:-
"23. In the head of medical expenses, the MACT or the High Court has not awarded any compensation presumably because the mother of the claimant, who was minor at the time of accident, may have claimed the amount of medical expenses being an IAS officer. But now the claimant has become major, and looking to the nature of injuries, future medical expenses that includes the attendant charges, use of diapers due to loss of urination senses is required to be calculated including future medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs 1,92,000 in the head of attendant charges @ Rs 1000 p.m. While the High Court proceeded on the premises that the rate of the attendant charges is variable after every five years, however, the Court calculated the amount @ Rs 2000 thereafter @ Rs 4000 p.m. for a period of 20 years and accordingly determined Rs 9,00,000 making enhancement of Rs 7,08,000 in the said head. As discussed, if we apply the multiplier method and in view of the judgment of Kajal, we accept the rate of attendant charges at Rs 5000 p.m. for 12 hours, looking to the nature of injuries and disability the claimant is required two attendants at least within 24 hours then the expenses in the head of attendant charges comes to Rs 10,000 p.m. If we apply the multiplier of 18, the amount comes to Rs 21,60,000."ATUL SETHI 2026.04.07 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh 10
FAO-3793-2010
17. In the present case, the injured remained bed-ridden for about 4 ½ months. He was also advised fixation of artificial limb. Keeping in view these facts, the injured must have required the assistance of an attendant at least for a period of 01 year, as such, the attendant charges are quantified as Rs.3000/- X 12 = 36,000/-. Other heads
18. The appellant-injured has not been granted any compensation towards transportation charges and special diet, diet whereas he is also entitled for enhanced compensation towards pain and sufferings, in view of the ratio of the decision in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay sufferings, Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343.
19. In view of the above discussion, and in view of the ratio of the decisions aforesaid, the compensation is reworked as follows:-
Compensation Heads Amount Awarded
Monthly Income - Rs.7120/-
Yearly Income - Rs.85,440/- (7120 X 12)
Future Prospects @ 40% - Rs.1,19,616/- (85440 + 34176)
(Age is 25)
Multiplier (18) - Rs.21,53,088/-
(1,19,616 X 18)
Permanent Disability (90%) - Rs.19,37,779/- (21,53,088/- X
90%)
Loss of future income - Rs.19,37,779
Rs.19,37,779/
19,37,779/-
Loss of income during treatment - Rs.32,040/-
Rs.32,040/- (7120 X 4.5)
for 4.5 months
Artificial Limb - Rs.46,000/-
Rs.46,000/-
Medical Expenses - Rs.26,000
Rs.26,000/
26,000/-
Attendant Charges - Rs.36,000/-
Rs.36,000/- (3,000/- X 12)
Special diet & Transportation - Rs.1,00
Rs.1,00,000/
1,00,000/-
,000/-
Pain and Sufferings - Rs.3
Rs.3,00,000/-
,00,000/-
Total - Rs.24,77,819
Rs.24,77,819/
24,77,819/-
ATUL SETHI
2026.04.07 17:23
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh 11
FAO-3793-2010
17. The amount in excess of the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. However, the claimant-appellants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay of 423 days in filing the main appeal.
18. In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors., 2025 INSC 361, after calculation of the enhanced amount, the same shall be transferred by respondent No.4-Insurance Company in the Bank Accounts of the claimant-appellant within a period of 06 weeks from today. The particulars of the bank account along with the requisite documents in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimant-appellant to respondent No.4-Insurance company within a period of two weeks from today and needful shall be done by respondent No.4-Insurance Company after verification thereof within a period of four weeks thereafter along with up-to-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned.
19. In view of the above discussion, present appeal is partly allowed and the Award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly.
20. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
25.03.2026
25.03.2026 [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN]
atulsethi JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
ATUL SETHI
2026.04.07 17:23
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh 12