Suresh Kumar vs Pardeep Rathi And Ors on 28 January, 2026

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Suresh Kumar vs Pardeep Rathi And Ors on 28 January, 2026

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 02.01.2015 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short '1988 Act'), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (in short 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.4,80,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant - Suresh Kumar in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 15.09.2013.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

1 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:46 ::: -2- FAO-2123-2015 (O&M) SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted to the appellant/claimant. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, has held as under:-

General principles relating to compensation in injury cases

5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 2 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 ::: -3- FAO-2123-2015 (O&M) 1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467).

6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :

Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, 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.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above :

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained below with reference to the following Illustration 'A' : The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident. As per Doctor's 3 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 ::: -4- FAO-2123-2015 (O&M) evidence, the permanent disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was 60% and the consequential permanent disability to the person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of compensation will be as follows:

a) Annual income before the accident : Rs. 36,000/-.

b) Loss of future earning per annum (15% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 5400/-.

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

d) Loss of future earnings : (5400 x 17) : Rs. 91,800/-

Illustration 'B' : The injured was a driver aged 30 years, earning Rs. 3000/- per month. His hand is amputated and his permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no longer drive. His chances of getting any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the salary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of compensation will be as follows :

a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs. 36,000/- .

b) Loss of future earning per annum (75% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 27000/-.

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

d) Loss of future earnings : (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/-

Illustration 'C' : The injured was 25 years and a final year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life, the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as 70%. The calculation of compensation will be as follows :

a) Minimum annual income he would have got if had been employed as an Engineer : Rs. 60,000/-

b) Loss of future earning per annum (70% of the expected annual income) : Rs. 42000/-

c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) : 18

d) Loss of future earnings : (42000 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/-

[Note : The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra)].

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under 4 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 ::: -5- FAO-2123-2015 (O&M) Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following aspects:-

(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand;

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased; (C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier; (D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation; (E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed salary.

The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

" Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express Tran. Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has held as under:-

" 7. There are three aspects which are required to be examined by us:

(a) the application of multiplier of '17' instead of '18';

The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). In para 46 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the age group of 15-25 years, the multiplier has to be '18' along with factoring in the extent of disability.

The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus, we come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be applied in the case of the appellant has to be '18' and not '17'.

(b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with permanent disability of 31.1% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has claimed compensation on what is stated to be the settled principle set out in 5 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 ::: -6- FAO-2123-2015 (O&M) Jagdish v. Mohan & Others, 2018 ACJ 1011 (SC) and Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande & Another, 2017 ACJ 979 (SC). We extract below the principle set out in the Jagdish (supra) in para 8:

"8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects:

(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;

(ii) Loss of income including future income;

(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;

(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and

(v) Loss of expectation of life."

[emphasis supplied] The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized in an earlier judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) opining that the multiplier method was logically sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident.

In the factual contours of the present case, if we examine the disability certificate, it shows the admission/hospitalization on 8 occasions for various number of days over 1½ years from August 2011 to January 2013. The nature of injuries had been set out as under:

"Nature of injury:

(i) compound fracture shaft left humerus

(ii) fracture both bones left forearm

(iii) compound fracture both bones right forearm

(iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand

(v) subtrochanteric fracture right femur

(vi) fracture shaft femur

(vii) fracture both bones left leg We have also perused the photographs annexed to the petition showing the current physical state of the appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation that the same was not on record in the trial court.

Be that as it may, this is the position even after treatment and the nature of injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration.

We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid principles with regard to future prospects must also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on the basis of the 6 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 ::: -7- FAO-2123-2015 (O&M) judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), more specifically para 61(iii), considering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary in the present case.

(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish's case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court.

CONCLUSION

8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled principles, the calculation of compensation by the appellant, as set out in para 5 of the synopsis, would have to be adopted as follows:

                             Heads                          Awarded
                 Loss of earning power                   Rs. 9,81,978/-
                 (Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100
                 Future prospects (50 per cent            Rs.4,90,989/-
                 addition)
                 Medical expenses including              Rs.18,46,864/-
                 transport         charges,
                 nourishment, etc.
                 Loss of matrimonial prospects            Rs.5,00,000/-
                 Loss of comfort, loss of                 Rs.1,50,000/-
                 amenities and mental agony
                 Pain and suffering                       Rs.2,00,000/-
                              Total                      Rs.41,69,831/-

The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.

9. A perusal of the award reveals that the appellant/claimant was stated to be 45 years old at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal erred in not calculating loss of earning due to the disability. Since there is no evidence on record to prove the income of the claimant, this Court deems it fit to calculate the 7 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 ::: -8- FAO-2123-2015 (O&M) same on the basis of minimum wages prevailing in State of Haryana at the time of the accident.

10. This view was recently reiterated in the case of Gurpeet Kaur and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company and Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 1778. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

"9. In our considered view, the Tribunal's approach is quite justified in law as well as on facts. In the summary proceedings where the approach of the Tribunal's determination must be in conformity with the object of the welfare legislation, it was rightly held that the monthly income of the deceased could not be less than Rs.25,000/-. The reason assigned by the High Court to reduce the monthly income of the deceased is totally cryptic and has no rationale. The Notification of Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor only in a case where there is no clue available to evaluate monthly income of the deceased. Where positive evidence has been led, no reliance on the Notification could be placed, particularly when it was nobody's case that the deceased was a labourer as presumed by the High Court."

11. In view of the same, the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident were Rs.5,731/-. Therefore, the monthly income of the claimant is reassessed as Rs.5,800/-.

12. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has erred in not adding any amount towards future prospects to the income of the claimant. Therefore, as per the settled law on compensation 25% is to be added as future prospects. Furthermore, considering the age of the claimant as 45 years, the correct multiplier should be 14.

8 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 ::: -9- FAO-2123-2015 (O&M)

13. A further perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the lower side to the claimant under the heads of Pain and suffering, which is required to be enhanced.

14. It is trite that permanent disability suffered by an individual not only impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities, but there are multiple non-quantifiable implications for the victim. Further, the very fact that healthy person turns into invalid being deprived of normal companionship and incapable of leading a productive life makes one suffer loss of dignity. As per the facts of the case the claimant suffered multiple injuries on his person. Due to the injuries suffered his left leg below knee was amputated. Further Dr. S.P. Sharma, SMO, General Hospital proved the disability certificate (Ex.P-1) of the claimant which shows that the claimant has suffered 60% disability qua his whole body. This fairly concludes the fact that the claimant have suffered immense amount of pain and agony due to the accident in question.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'KS Muralidhar versus R Subbulakshmi and another 2024 INSC 886 highlighted the intangible but devastating consequence of pain and suffering. The relevant portion of the same is reproduce as under:-

"15. Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries suffered, the `pain and suffering' caused, and the life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant-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/- under the head `pain and suffering', fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of the 9 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 ::: -10- FAO-2123-2015 (O&M) claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded."

16. Therefore, in view of the above judgment and facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant compensation of 8 lakhs under the heads of pain and suffering.

17. A perusal of the record reveals that the left leg of the appellant was amputated below the knee, rendering him permanently dependent on a prosthetic limb for the rest of his life. As per the facts of the present case, the claimant had procured an artificial limb at a cost of ₹4.7 lakhs. However, no compensation has been awarded for the same. In view of the permanent nature of the disability and the lifelong necessity of a prosthetic limb, the appellant is entitled to just and reasonable compensation towards the expenditure incurred on the purchase, upkeep, maintenance, and future replacement of the prosthetic limb. Reference at this stage can be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of G Vivek Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2023 ACJ 585. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:-

"7. While accepting the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company in part, thereby reducing the compensation amount of Rs.56,00,000/-, the only reason discernible from the Order passed by the High Court reads as follows:- "As the claimant sustained disability to the extent of 97% due to amputation of his right leg and other complications, learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of '15' to calculate the loss of income. Taking the notional income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- per month and adding 50% towards his future prospects, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.27,00,000/-, towards loss of future income. Learned Tribunal has further awarded 10 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 ::: -11- FAO-2123-2015 (O&M) Rs.16,82,497/- towards medical expenses, transport and attendant charges, Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of engagement and marriage prospects. Law is well settled that pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant is to be assessed on the basis of actual expenses incurred. Therefore, the claimant having filed bills and vouchers to show that he had incurred medical expenses of Rs.10,15,949/-, learned Tribunal was not justified in awarding Rs.16,82,497/- towards medical expenses, transport and attendant fees. Moreover there is no basis for assessing the cost of new prosthesis at Rs.5,00,000/- nor there is any basis for calculating medical future expenses at Rs.2,00,000/. Though non pecuniary loss can be assessed on notional basis, the same must have a co- elation to the actual cost which an injured may incur in future for treatment of his injuries sustained in the accident. In other words, non- pecuniary loss towards future medical treatment, loss of income towards attendant expenses etc. must have a nexus with the actual rate for incurring such expenses and not on mere assumption. The award of compensation must be just and fair irrespective of the claims made and the same should not be a bonanza for the claimant."

8. The aggrieved Appellant is before us.

9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record.

10. It may be seen that the High Court has not employed any reasoning, logic or evidence to reduce the cost of a new prosthesis from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. The High Court is also silent regarding its maintenance cost.

11. In our view, the Tribunal was justified in awarding a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards cost of new prosthesis at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- to be changed four times in five years. In other words, the Tribunal awarded this cost component only for 20 years despite the fact that Appellant was hardly of the age of 15-16 years old at the time when the Award was passed.

11 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 ::: -12- FAO-2123-2015 (O&M)

12. There is no rationale for the High Court to reduce the cost of the prosthesis from Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-"

18. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, the claimant/appellant is held entitled for compensation under the head of future medical expenses on account of purchase and maintenance of prosthetics to the tune of Rs.8 lacs.

19. Further perusal of the record shows that the appellant/claimant suffered various grievous injuries on his body including amputation of a leg making his life miserable. As a result, he had to depend on others for his daily activities and likely to have employed an attendant to assist him for his physical movements. This Court has dealt with similar issue in case titled as Ajay Kumar vs. Jasbir Singh and others, passed in FAO No 1356-2007, decided on 18.02.2025. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

"ATTENDANT CHARGES

36. So far as attendant charges is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and others, 2020(2)R.C.R.(Civil) 27, held that where injured was a female child aged about12 years and date of the accident was 18.10.2007 and it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that to determine the attendant charges, Multiplier system should be applied. Relevant paragraphs No. 22 and 25 of the aforesaid judgment are as under:

"22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court at the rate of 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 facts 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 12 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 ::: -13- FAO-2123-2015 (O&M) compensation on account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was recognized by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, 1958-65 ACJ 179 (SC).

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 recognized 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.

23. xxxxx

24. xxxxx

25. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the basic amount taken for determining attendant charges is very much on the lower side. We must remember that this little girl is severely suffering from incontinence meaning that she does not have control over her bodily functions like passing urine and faeces. As she grows older, she will not be able to handle her periods. She requires an attendant virtually 24 hours a day. She requires an attendant who though may not be medically trained but must be capable of handling a child who is bedridden. She would require an attendant who would ensure that she does not suffer from bed sores. The claimant has placed before us a notification of the State of Haryana of the year 2010, wherein the wages for skilled labourer is Rs.4,846 per month. We, therefore, assess the cost of one attendant at Rs.5,000 and she will require two attendants which works out to Rs.10,000/- per month, which comes to Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum, and using the multiplier of 18 it works out Rs. 21,60,000 for attendant charges for her entire life. This take care of all the pecuniary damages.

37. In view of the above as per the Disability Certificate, which is 100% and which requires full-time attendant, therefore, it would be appropriate to decide the attendant charges accordingly. 100%

13 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 ::: -14- FAO-2123-2015 (O&M) disability would require day and night attendants, meaning thereby two attendants would be required. Further 100% disability of the appellant-claimant would require trained attendant i.e. who should have knowledge of nursing and experience as well. Further the minimum amount which an attendant would demand is Rs.10,000/-. Since two attendants are required for 100% disability, it would be appropriate to take the minimum amount of Rs.10,000/- each of two attendants i.e. amounting to Rs.20,000/- for two attendants.

38. In the instant case, there is substantial medical evidence establishing that the injured appellant-claimant has suffered from a 100% disability of the lower limb, as per Ex. P-4. Over the past 20 years since the accident on 31.05.2005, the injured has faced significant challenges in leading a normal life. Furthermore, medical testimony confirms that the injured person is unable to carry out daily activities independently.

39. Applying the principles laid down in Kajal's case (supra) it is evident that the appellant-claimant requires continuous assistance from two attendants for 24 hours a day. In Kajal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the multiplier system must be followed to determine attendant charges, taking into account factors such as longevity, inflation, interest rates, and the uncertainties of life. The Court also highlighted that an individual with severe disabilities requires dedicated attendants, even if they are not medically trained, to ensure proper care and prevent further complications such as bedsores.

14 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 ::: -15- FAO-2123-2015 (O&M)

20. In view of the above judgment and considering age and disability suffered by the appellant/claimant, the appellant is entitled to attendant charges to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.

21. A further perusal of the award reveals that meager amount is granted by the learned Tribunal under the heads of transportation, special diet and loss of amenities of life. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court. RELIEF

22. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award dated 02.01.2015 is modified. Accordingly, as per the settled principles of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the appellant-claimant is held entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation as calculated below:-

       Sr. No. Heads                                    Compensation Awarded
          1     Income                                  Rs.5,800/-
          2     Loss of future prospects (25%)          Rs.1,450/-
                                                        (25% of Rs.5,800/-)
          3     Annual Income                           Rs.87,000/-
                                                        (Rs.7,250/- X 12)
          4     Loss of future earning on account Rs.52,200/-
                of 60% disability                 (Rs.87,000/- X 60%)
          5     Multiplier of 14                        Rs.7,30,800/-
                                                        (Rs.52,200/-X 14)
          6     Medical Expenses                        Rs.2,50,000/-
          7     Pain and suffering                      Rs.8,00,000/-
          8     Attendant Charges                       Rs.1,00,000/-
          9     Transportation Charges                  Rs.70,000/-
         10     Loss of amenities of life               Rs.1,00,000/-
         11     Future medical expenses                 Rs.8,00,000/-
                (prosthetic limb)
         12     Special Diet                            Rs.3,00,000/-
         13     Disability                              Rs.1,20,000/-
         14     Total compensation awarded:-            Rs.32,70,800/-
         15     Deduction:-                             Rs.4,80,000/-
                Amount awarded by Tribunal
         16     Enhanced             amount          of Rs.27,90,800/-
                compensation                            (32,70,800- 4,80,000)




                                         15 of 16
                   ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 :::
                                         -16-
FAO-2123-2015 (O&M)

23. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the amount so calculated shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization.

24. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest to the appellant-claimant.

25. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.





28.01.2026                                       (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Saahil                                                 JUDGE
             Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
             Whether reportable              : Yes/No




                                     16 of 16
                   ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:47 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court