Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudesh vs Kuldeep And Anr on 11 February, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
-1-
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)
Sudesh ......Appellant
Vs.
Kuldeep and Another ......Respondents
Reserved on: 09.02.2026
Pronounced on: 11.02.2026
Uploaded on: 12.02.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No
Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav , Advocate
Mr. C.S.Saini, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Manish Mehta, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
04.09.2009 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, Narnaul (in short ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of
compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/-
along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of injuries sustained by
the appellant/claimant – Sudesh in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on
23.10.2007.
2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined
to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed
1 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-02-2026 01:08:08 :::
-2-
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)
narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is
skipped herein for the sake of brevity.
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 respondents, 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 and2 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-02-2026 01:08:08 :::
-3-
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)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 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 his3 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-02-2026 01:08:08 :::
-4-
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)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 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 :
4 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-02-2026 01:08:08 :::
-5-
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)
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 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:-
5 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-02-2026 01:08:08 :::
-6-
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)” 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 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
6 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-02-2026 01:08:08 :::
-7-
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)
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 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/-
7 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 13-02-2026 01:08:08 :::
-8-
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)
(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 15 years old at the time of the accident and was studying in 10th
standard. 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 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 the8 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-02-2026 01:08:08 :::
-9-
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)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. Further, recently the Apex Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs.
Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr, 2025 INSC 1070, also reiterated that
when income of a minor is to be calculated, then potential of a minor and
future prospects cannot be curtailed by treating him/her as a non-earner, and
the yardstick of minimum wages of a skilled worker is the just and
reasonable benchmark.
12. The relevant portion of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) the
same is reproduced as under:-
“9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor
appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment
and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is
evident that the Courts below have failed to take into
account the monthly income of the appellant while
determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a
well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of
law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent
disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed
in the same category as a non-earning individual for the
purposes of assessing the amount of compensation
because the child was not engaged in gainful employment
at the time of the accident. In such a case, the
computation of compensation under the head of loss of
income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least,9 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-02-2026 01:08:08 :::
-10-
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as
notified for the relevant period in the respective State
where the cause of action arises. The said observation
was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand
and Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 413, and Baby Sakshi Greola v.
Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr., 2024 SCC Online SC
3692.
10. Adverting to the facts at hand, the appellant was an
8- year-old child at the time of the accident. In view of
the above exposition of law, we must advert to the
prevailing minimum wages, which for the skilled ones, as
in the year of accident, i.e., 2012, in Gujarat would be
Rs.227.85p. per day, therefore, in the interest of justice,
we deem it appropriate to determine the income of the
appellant as Rs.6,835.5p. per month, rounding off to
Rs.6,836/- per month.”
13. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the present case, the monthly
notional income of the deceased minor, Sudesh, is accordingly assessed at
Rs.5,500/- per month, being the minimum wages of a skilled worker as
notified for the relevant period in the State of Haryana.
14. 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 40% is to
be added as future prospects. Furthermore, considering the age of the
claimant as 15 years, the correct multiplier should be 18.
15. 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.
10 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-02-2026 01:08:08 :::
-11-
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)
16. 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 her person. Due to the injuries, her range of motion of right
ankle joint was reduced by 10% with deep complication. Further Dr. Dinesh
Podar, PW5 proved the disability certificate (Ex.PW5/A) of the claimant,
which shows that the claimant has suffered 13% disability qua her whole
body. This fairly concludes the fact that the claimant have suffered immense
amount of pain and agony due to the accident in question.
17. 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 claimant-
appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum
11 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-02-2026 01:08:08 :::
-12-
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just,
fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.”
18. Therefore, in view of the above judgment and facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant
compensation of 3 lakhs under the heads of pain and suffering.
19. A further perusal of the award shows that the learned tribunal
erred in not awarding any amount of compensation under the head of ‘loss of
marriage prospects’, despite the claimant being 15 years old at the time of
the accident and having her entire life before her. The learned Tribunal failed
to consider the impact of her injury on her ability to marry, find a life
partner, and enjoy normal matrimonial prospects. Hon’ble the Supreme
Court, in its decision in Rahul Ganpat Rao Sable versus National
Insurance Company, 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 574 squarely addresses this
omission and recognizes that such non-pecuniary loss arising from
permanent disability including loss of marriage prospects deserves just
compensation.
20. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
“Loss of Marriage prospects:
20. No compensation has been awarded under the above
head. Considering the nature of injuries duly approved
and certified, the appellant would be entitled to
compensation under loss of marriage prospects. Again,
relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
Chaus Tausif Almiya (supra), we award a fixed
compensation of Rs.3 lakhs under the said head.In view
12 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-02-2026 01:08:08 :::
-13-
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)of the above, this Court in the interest of justice is
awarding 50000 under the conventional head of ‘loss of
marriage prospects.”
21. Therefore, in accordance with the above referred to judgment,
this Court deems it fit to award Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of loss of
marriage prospects.
22. A further perusal of the award reveals that meager amount is
granted by the learned Tribunal under the heads of transportation, special
diet, attendant charges and loss of amenities of life. Therefore, the award
requires indulgence of this Court.
RELIEF
23. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award
dated 04.09.2009 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.5,500/-
2 Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.2,200/-
(40% of Rs.5,500/-)
3 Annual Income Rs.92,400/-
(Rs.7,700/- X 12)
4 Loss of future earning on Rs.12,012/-
account of 13% disability (Rs.92,400/- X 13%)
5 Multiplier of 18 Rs.2,16,216/-
(Rs.12,012/-X 18)
6 Medical Expenses Rs.64,000/-
7 Pain and suffering Rs.3,00,000/-
8 Attendant Charges Rs.50,000/-
9 Transportation Charges Rs.70,000/-
13 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-02-2026 01:08:08 :::
-14-
FAO-2489-2010 (O&M)
10 Loss of amenities of life Rs.2,00,000/-
11 Special Diet Rs.70,000/-
13 Disability Rs.26,000/-
14 Total compensation Rs.9,96,216/-
awarded:-
15 Deduction:- Rs.1,20,000/-
Amount awarded by Tribunal
16 Enhanced amount of Rs.8,76,216
compensation (9,96,216 - 1,20,000)
24. 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.
25. Respondents are 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.
26. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
11.02.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) P.Seth JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 13-02-2026 01:08:08 :::