Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh vs Jagdish Singh And Ors on 27 March, 2026
FAO-4673-2018
2018 (O&M)
& FAO-1651-2019
2019 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)
HARJINDER SINGH ...Appellant
Vs.
JAGDISH SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents
AND
2. FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ....Appellant
Vs.
HARJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ....Respondents
1. The date when the judgment was reserved 23.02.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.03.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.03.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced.
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment Not
and reasons thereof. applicable.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate
for the appellants in FAO-1651-2019
FAO 2019 and
for respondent No.1 in FAO-4673-2018.
FAO 2018.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent-
respondent Insurance
urance Company in FAO
FAO-1651-2019
and for the appellant (in FAO-4673-2018).
FAO 2018).
*****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
CM-4979-CII-2019 2019 IN FAO-1651-2019 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 131 days in filing the appeal.
Notice of the application was issued vide order dated 09.09.2025. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of rrespondent-Insurance Insurance Company did not choose to file reply to the application. MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 1 FAO-4673-2018 2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 2019 (O&M) Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay of 131 days in fil filing ing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
MAIN CASE
1. Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for brevity, "the Tribunal"), and are, therefore, being decided together by this common judgment. One appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded, whereas, the second appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company, assailing the quantum of compensation on the ground that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and liable to be reduced (FAO-1651 1651-2019 & FAO-4673-2018 respectively), on account of injuries suffered by Harjinder Singh in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 01.01.2016.
01.01.2016
2. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted a sum of Rs. 20,50,140/- as compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its actual realization. Both the appeals, involving challenge challenge to the quantum of compensation, are thus, taken up together for adjudication. Facts are being culled out from FAO FAO--
1651-2019 2019 for reference.
FACTS
3. The appellant, being injured filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 2 FAO-4673-2018 2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 2019 (O&M) by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 01.01.2016 while alleging rash and negligent driving driving of vehicle bearing registration No. PB PB--
23-D-5103 5103 being driven by respondent No.1/driver. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues and, after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record, passed the award dated 31.03.2018 granting compensation, as noticed in the preceding paragraph after holding the driver of the offending vehicle to be negligent in driving the same.
4. Being aggrieved of the aforementioned award dated 31.03.
31.03.2018 2018 passed by the learned Tribunal, appellant/claimant preferred FAO-1651-- 2019 seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the amount awarded warded by the learned Tribunal was was wholly inadequate and not commensurate with the injuries suffered, the per period iod of treatment, pain and suffering, medical expenses and other attendant losses. The Insurance Company, on the other hand, filed FAO--4673-2018 challenging the quantum of compensation primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding an excessive amount under various heads, thereby calling for reduction of the award. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/CLAIMANT.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 passed b by y the learned Tribunal was wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts, particularly with regard to the assessment of just compensation. It was submitted that despite recording a finding of 100% functional disability, the learned Tribunal erred in applying ying only 25% future prospects instead of 30%, and further MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 3 FAO-4673-2018 2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 2019 (O&M) committed a patent illegality in deducting 50% towards personal expenses, which was impermissible in injury cases. He further argued that the compensation awarded under various heads, including pai pain n and suffering, attendant charges, future medical expenses, special diet and transportation, was grossly inadequate and did not commensurate with the nature, extent and lifelong impact of the injuries suffered by the claimant, who was rendered completely dependent. Placing reliance upon settled principles governing grant of compensation in injury cases, learned counsel contended that the award failed to account for both pecuniary and non non--
pecuniary losses in their true perspective, thereby resulted in misca miscarriage rriage of justice. It was thus prayed that the compensation be suitably enhanced along with appropriate rate of interest. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 3/INSURANCE COMPANY.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 was vitiated by patent errors of law and misappreciation of evidence, thereby rendering it unsustainable. It was contended that the learned Tribunal Tribunal erroneously fastened liability upon the appellant/claimant without properly considering the material inconsistencies in the claimant's case, including the delayed registration of FIR and the plea that the alleged vehicle was not involved in the occurren occurrence.
ce. He further argued that the finding of 100% functional disability was wholly perverse inasmuch as the medical evidence on record only reflected 65% disability, subject to reassessment, and even the testimony of CW CW-4 4 indicated possibility of improvement. Moreover, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claimant resumed employment post post-accident, accident, as MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 4 FAO-4673-2018 2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 2019 (O&M) evident from om salary slips, thereby negating the conclusion of total loss of earning capacity. In these circumstances, the computation of compensatio compensation n was grossly exaggerated and contrary to settled principles, and therefore warranted interference by this Court and absolution of the appellant/Insurance Company from the liability fastened upon it. DISCUSSION AND REASONING
7. I have heard learned counsel counsel for the parties and perused the paper paper--
book. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant.
8. Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to draw guidance from the principles laid down down in similar cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In "Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors." reported as (2011) 1 SCC 343 the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries.
"6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitaliza hospitalization, tion, 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
pecuniary damages (General Damages Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, 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).MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 5
FAO-4673-2018 2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 2019 (O&M) In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads ds (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, the compensation will granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future 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".
ON THE ASPECT OF ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ASSESSMENT UNDER "LOSS OF INCOME"
9. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant/claimant was 45 years old at the time of the accident and earning Rs. 18,268/ 18,268/- per month by working at Excel Security Company. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed the monthly income of the appellant/claimant appellant/claimant @ Rs. 18,268/ 18,268/- per month, in consonance with the statement of CW-3 CW 3 who also proved on record identity card as Ex.PW3/A, Letter of Appointment Ex.CW3/B and salary sheet as Ex.PW3/C. The said assessment is based on cogent and reliable evidence and does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the determination of the monthly income as recorded by the learned Tribunal.
However, the argument of the Insurance Company that the claimant resumed employment post-accident, post accident, as evident from salary slips, thereby negating the conclusion of total loss of earning capacity, is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. Mere resumption of employment, that too in a limited or accommodated capacity, cannot be equated with restoration of earning capacity to its pre-accident pre accident level. It is well settled that the concept of functional disability is distinct from physical disability and has to be assessed keeping in view the nature of avocation and the impac impactt of injuries on the ability of the claimant to effectively discharge his duties. MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 6 FAO-4673-2018 2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 2019 (O&M) In the present case, the record reflects that the appellant/claimant suffered grievous injuries resulting in substantial permanent disability, which would necessarily impair his efficiency, mobility and overall work performance. The salary slips relied upon by the Insurance Company do not conclusively establish that the claimant was discharging his duties in the same manner or with the same efficiency as pri prior or to the accident, nor do they rule out the possibility of sympathetic or sheltered employment extended by the employer. Such documents, in absence of cogent evidence demonstrating full restoration of functional capacity, cannot be made the sole basis to negate the loss of earning capacity.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and concluded that the claimant had suffered a significant loss of earning capacity, and the contention raised by the Insurance surance Company to the contrary deserves to be discarded. 9.1 Now, a perusal of the document placed on record as Ex.C43, being the admission record of Fortis Hospital, shows that the appellant/claimant remained hospitalized from 01.01.2016 to 18.01.2016. Thus, the loss of income suffered by the appellant/claimant during the said period is assessed as Rs. Rs. 10,960.8 (608.93 x 18). Further, it is evident that the motor vehicular accident in the present case took place on 01.01.2016 and the appellant/claimant llant/claimant has not recovered completely and continues to remain dependent upon his wife. This fact also stands substantiated from the re-assessment assessment conducted at PGIMER, Chandigarh, which records that the appellant/claimant is suffering from neurocognit neurocognitive ive impairment in the MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 7 FAO-4673-2018 2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 2019 (O&M) form of dementia as a consequence of the head injury injury,, accompanied by secondary personality changes.
changes. Although there is no gross locomotor disability on neurosurgical assessment and no significant visual disability, with corrected vision vision of 6/6 in both eyes, the appellant/claimant has been found to be suffering from bilateral sensorineural hearing loss loss.
In such circumstances, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid injuries, particularly the neurocognitive impairment affecting me memory, mory, behaviour, and overall functional capacity, cannot be understated. Even in the absence of substantial locomotor disability, the mental and cognitive deficits suffered by the appellant/claimant have a profound bearing on his ability to lead a normal life life and to effectively engage in gainful employment. The nature of such disability, being permanent and debilitating, renders the appellant/claimant incapable of performing his avocation in the manner he did prior to the accident.
Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in the assessment made by the learned Tribunal in treating the functional disability of the appellant/claimant as 100%, as the same is in consonance with the settled principles governing assessment of functional disability vis vis-à-vis s earning capacity. Additionally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of "Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar" reported as 2020 INSC 553 held that in cases where a claimant suffers disability due to a motor vehicle accident, compensation may be awarded not only for the future loss of income but also towards future prospects.
MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 8 FAO-4673-2018 2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 2019 (O&M) 9.2 A perusal of record shows that the age of appellant/claiman appellant/claimantt at the time of accident was more than 45 years of age age. The computation of future prospects is to be done as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi" reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 para 59.3, which records the conclusion in this regard, rega reads as under:-
"59.3 While determining income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should read as actual salary less tax."
9.3 In view of the above discussion, the appell appellant/claimant ant/claimant in addition to the loss of future earnings, shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects @ 30%. Therefore, the income of the appellant/claimant after adding future prospects be taken as Rs. 23,748.4 (18,268 + 5,480.4) perr month for the purpose of calculation of compensation. Accordingly, this Court finds that the compensation payable for the functional disability to the extent ent of 100% is assessed @ Rs. 39,89,731.2/ 39,89,731.2/- (23,748.4 x 12 x 14 x 100/100).
ASSESSMENT UNDER "MEDICAL "MEDICAL EXPENSES/FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES/HOSPITALIZATION"
10. In the present case, the appellant/claimant suffered disability to the extent of 65%, %, which stands duly established from the testimony of Dr..
Subho Chakroborty, who appeared as CW
CW-4.. Furthermore, the
MOHMED ATIK
2026.03.27 19:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgmemtt 9
FAO-4673-2018
2018 (O&M)
& FAO-1651-2019
2019 (O&M)
appellant/claimant has also proved on record med medical ical bills and receipts as Ex.C4 to Ex.C53, Ex.C53 reflecting that an amount of Rs. 31,409/ 31,409/- was incurred towards his treatment. It has also come on record that certain medical expenses were borne by ECHS, and therefore, the claimant is not entitled to seek reimbursement of those particular expenses. However,, keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and the treatment besides need of medicines during rehabili rehabilitation tation 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 laim/reimbursement purposes, though, total bills proved are for 31,409/- yet in the humble opinion of this Court, compensation unde underr this head is assessed as Rs. 1,00,000/-. 1 10.1 As noted hereinabove, the appellant/claimant is dependent upon his wife e and, with her assistance, is able to perform only basic self self-care care activities such as bathing, toileting, dressing and eating. His speech remains limited and largely self-directed, self directed, and any interruption tends to trigger verbal, and at times, physical aggre aggression. Further, Dr. Subho Chakroborty (CW-4) (CW 4) has opined that the appellant/claimant would face extreme difficulty in performing even the simplest of tasks and that there is no likelihood of recovery after a period of five years. In view of such circumstances, es, the family of the appellant/claimant is required to be adequately financially equipped to manage both the existing and prospective medical needs arising out of the condition of the MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 10 FAO-4673-2018 2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 2019 (O&M) appellant/claimant. Accordingly, it is considered just and appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-
5,00,000/ under this head.
ON THE ASPECT OF PAIN AND SUFFERINGS
11. For assessing just compensation under the head of pain and sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886, wherein it was held that the award of compensation under non non-pecuniary pecuniary heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospit hospitalization, alization, and the mental and physical agony endured by the claimant. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
under:
"15. Keeping in view the above-referred above referred judgments, the injuries suffered, the 'pain ' and suffering'' caused, and the life life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant claimant-appellant, appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs. 15,00,000/ claimant-appellant 15,00,000/--
under the head 'pain
' and suffering',', fully consci
conscious
ous of the fact that the
prayer of the claimant-appellant
claimant appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, 10,00,000/ , we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded."
11.1 In light of the settled legal position enun enunciated ciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muralidhar's case (supra), and having due regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident from the documentary evidence duly proved on record that the appellant/claimant sustained grievous grievous injuries, including head injury . More than that, Dr. Subho Chakraborty, Medical Special Disability Board MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 11 FAO-4673-2018 2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 2019 (O&M) PGIMER Chandigarh who appeared as CW CW-4, 4, proved on record the disability of the appellant/claimant @ 65%.
65%. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-
10 is awarded under the head of pain and sufferings.
ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER 'PECUNIARY HEADS'
12. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, particularly the head injury followed by prolonged post post-operative operative care, it is evident that the appellant/claimant is still under continuous medical supervision and is necessarily required to undergo regular follow follow-up up and post-operative operative care. However, the learned Tribunal failed to grant adequate compensation under the heads of special diet, conveyanc conveyancee charges and attendant charges.
charges Having regard to the prolonged treatment, frequent hospital visits, and the need for a special diet and assistance of an attendant for day--to-day day activities, the compen compensation sation awarded under these heads is found to be inadequate. Accordingly, the compensation under these heads is reassessed and enhanced to Rs. 5 5,00,000/-,, which is considered just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
CONCLUSION
13. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner:-
manner:
S.No. Nature Amount (in Rs.)
1. Loss of Income (Rs.39,89,731.2 + Rs. 10,960.8 10,960.8) 40,00,692/-MOHMED ATIK
2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 12
FAO-4673-2018 2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 2019 (O&M)
2. Medical Expenses//Future /Future medical expenses/ 6,00,000/- Hospitalization (Rs. 1,00,000 + Rs. 5,00,000)
3. Compensation under other pecuniary head 5,00,000/-
4. Compensation under pain and sufferings 10,00,000/-
Total Compensation 61,00,692/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal 20,50,140/-
Enhanced Amount 40,50,552/-
QUESTION REGARDING NEGLIGENCE
14. The learned Tribunal has returned a categorical finding with regard to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle on the basis of the consistent testimony of the claimant as well as the eye eye-witness Surmukh Singh,, which stood duly corroborated by the registration of the FIR and the production of the relevant criminal record. The mere delay in lodging the FIR does not, in the facts and circumstances of the pr present esent case, create any dent in the case of the claimant, inasmuch as the evidence on record clearly indicates that the immediate concern of the witnesses was to ensure prompt medical treatment to the injured. It is by now well settled that delay in registration ation of the FIR cannot be made a ground to discard an otherwise genuine claim, particularly in motor accident cases where the primary effort of the family members and the bystanders is to save the life of the victim. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others others,, (2011) 4 SCC 693 and Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656,, wherein it has been held that delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to a claim petition if the occurrence of the accident is otherwise proved on record. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence is thus MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 13 FAO-4673-2018 2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 2019 (O&M) based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and the same does not call for any interference interference by this Court.
15. The grant of interest @ 6% 6% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, reported as (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as "Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana 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 claimants 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 from today. Needless to mention here that the the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation.
16. Accordingly, the appeal appeal preferred by the claimant claimant/injured, i.e. FAO--
1651-2019,, is allowed in the aforesaid terms with the modification in the quantum ntum of compensation as assessed hereina hereinabove, whereas, the appeal filed at the instance of the appellant-Insurance appellant Insurance Company, i.e. FAO FAO-4673--
2018,, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed dismissed.. The impugned award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib is modified to the extent ent indicated, and the claimant shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the manner specified in the preceding paragraph. Th The e liability to satisfy the MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt 14 FAO-4673-2018 2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 2019 (O&M) award shall remain the same as determined by the learned Tribunal. Pending miscellaneous application(s),, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
27.03.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sanjay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether Reportable? Yes/No
MOHMED ATIK
2026.03.27 19:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgmemtt 15