Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harkaur vs Baljeet & Othrs on 24 February, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M)
HARKAUR
......Appellant
Vs.
BALJEET AND ORS.
......Respondents
Reserved on: 17.02.2026
Date of decision: 24.02.2026
Uploaded on: 25.02.2026
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. Akshit Mehta, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate
for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
31.08.2010 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, Bhiwani (in short ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation,
granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.1,51,000/- along with interest
@ 6 % per annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant –
Harkaur in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 10.03.2009.
1 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -2-
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.
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 respondents No.1 and 2 contends that
the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. He
further contends that respondents No.1 and 2 have filed separate appeal bearing
No.FAO-7208-2010 titled as “Baljeet and another vs Harkaur and another”
challenging liability to pay compensation as fastened upon the owner and driver,
therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. 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 is on the higher side,
therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case with their able assistance.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
7. 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
2 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -3-
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
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 :
3 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -4-
(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
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/-
4 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -5-
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)].
8. 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.”
5 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -6-
9. 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
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
6 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -7-
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/-
(Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100
Future prospects (50 per cent Rs.4,90,989/-
7 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -8-
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.
10. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the claimant/appellant
was 50 years of age at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal has erred in
the computation of compensation and has not assessed the same in accordance
with the settled principles of law governing motor accident claims.
11. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to reassess and
recompute the compensation payable to the claimant. With regard to the income of
the claimant, it was stated that she was a homemaker and was also engaged in
running a small dairy business. However, no cogent documentary or oral evidence
has been adduced to substantiate the alleged income from the dairy activity. In the
absence of reliable proof of independent earnings, this Court considers it
appropriate to assess her income in her capacity as a homemaker.
12. This Court in FAO-1292-2006, titled as ‘Jasbir Singh and another Vs.
Surjit Singh and others‘, decided on 22.03.2018 while assessing the notional
income of the housewife has held as under:-
“In FAO No. 218 of 2014, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
while relying upon the principles laid down in Lata Wadhwa8 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -9-and others v. State of Bihar and others 2001(4) RCR(Civil)
673), made the following observations:-
“Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even
while noticing that the income of a skilled worker in
2012 was approximately Rs.8000/- the Tribunal has
wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as
Rs.9000/-. As per him once the notional income had been
taken a deduction had to be made for personal expenses.
This argument is flawed. In Lata Wadhwa and others v.
State of Bihar and others reported as 2001(4) RCR
(Civil) 673 (where the accident had taken place in 1981)
the Hon’ble Supreme Court evaluated the contribution of
a house wife at Rs.3000/-per month. The accident in the
present case took place after 23 years. In my considered
opinion to tag a house wife as a ‘skilled worker’ alone
does not do complete justice to her multifarious role as a
home manager. Keeping in view the lapse of 23 years
between the accident in the case of Lata Wadhwa and the
present accident and my conclusion that a house wife is
something more than a mere skilled worker it would not
be unreasonable to estimate the contribution of the
deceased in the present case at a higher figure. On the
whole I see no reason for reducing the quantum.”
7. I find sufficient reason to follow the judgment in FAO No.
218 of 2014, particularly as I am informed that the Special
Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the order in this case has
been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Similarly, the
SLP filed in the other case cited by the appellants has also met
the same fate. Consequently, these orders have attained finality,
leaving no scope for further dispute regarding their binding
nature.
8. It is imperative to acknowledge the multifaceted role of a
housewife as a homemaker. Her contributions extend beyond
9 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -10-
measurable economic parameters, encompassing household
management, child care, emotional support, and the upkeep of
familial stability. These services, though often unrecognized in
monetary terms, are invaluable to the functioning and well-
being of a household. In assessing compensation, the court
must factor in this indispensable contribution, which would
otherwise necessitate considerable expenditure if outsourced.
In view of the above, it is just and reasonable to determine the
monthly income of the deceased Charanjit Kaur, housewife at
Rs.9,000/- per month, therefore, the award requires
interference by the Court.”
13. In addition to this, the work of a housewife transcends caretaking
embracing preparation of meals for the entire family; procurement of groceries
and household supplies; cleaning and maintenance of the house and surroundings;
financial planning and budget management; child care and education; tending to
elderly dependents; coordinating repairs and homebased healthcare etc. These
services, if procured in the open market, would command substantial
remuneration, underscoring the integral role played by a homemaker in family
stability.
14. In view of the above, referred to judgment and the fact that the case is
pertaining to 2011 the monthly income of the claimant is assessed at ₹9,000/-.
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.
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
10 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -11-
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 has suffered grievous injuries on her person including injuries
on her right foot and below the right foot ankle joint. She was admitted in General
Hospital, Bhiwani from 10.03.2009 to 08.04.2009. Due to the accident in
question, the claimant/appellant was permanently disabled by shortening of her
right foot. Dr. M.K. Sheoran (PW-4) deposed regarding her disability and testified
that the claimant had a traumatic amputation of right lower limb at the junction of
upper 1/3rd and lower 2/3rd with superficial complications. Furthermore, PW-4
also proved her disability certificate (Ex.P-4/A), which shows the disability @
70%. He also deposed that the claimant will lead a life of a crippled person
throughout. 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
11 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -12-sum 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 Rs.12,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.
19. Further perusal of the record shows that the claimant suffered various
grievous injuries on her body making her life miserable. As a result, she has to
depend on others for her daily activities and likely to have employed an attendant to
assist her for her necessary 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
compensation on account of loss of income but also for
determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was12 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -13-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%
disability would require day and night attendants, meaning thereby
two attendants would be required. Further 100% disability of the13 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -14-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.
20. In view of the above judgment and considering age and disability
suffered by the appellant-Harkaur, the appellant/claimant is entitled to attendant
charges to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.
21. Further perusal of the award reveals that no amount has been granted
towards future medical expenses. The record demonstrates that the claimant suffered
amputation resulting in shortening of her leg. As per the testimony of PW-4, Dr. M.K.
Sheoran, the claimant has undergone traumatic amputation and is likely to lead a life
with permanent disability and functional impairment. The evidence further reflects
that although the initial surgery was conducted in a Government Hospital without
14 of 17
::: Downloaded on – 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -15-
charge, the claimant has subsequently been required to seek continued medical care,
including follow- up treatment, wound management, and related medical supervision
to ensure proper healing and to prevent complications.
22. The hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavin V. P. Seremani Devi
2025 INSC 1028 granted future medical expenses for the proper treatment of the
injured.
23. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:
“9. We find that this reduction in the amount granted towards
future medical expenses is totally unjustified. Though the figure
of Rs. 3,000/- per month as granted appears to be
reasonable, in our view restricting the amount of future
medical expenses only for a period of 25 years appears to be
unjustified. As noted above, the claimant was aged about 21
years when the accident took place. If the amount of future
medical expenses is restricted only for a further duration of 25
years, it would meet such expenses till the claimant attains the
age of 46 years. In our view, the amount granted towards future
medical expenses deserves to be enhanced keeping in view the
average life expectancy. Taking an overall view of the matter,
an amount of Rs. 15 lacs towards future medical expenses
would meet the ends of justice. Part of the said amount if
invested by the claimant on its receipt would earn interest and
would enable the claimant to tide over future expenses in the
latter part of his life. Accordingly, the amount of compensation
granted towards future medical expenses stands enhanced to
Rs. 15 lacs.”
24. In view of the nature of injuries sustained, the permanent disability
suffered, and the continuing medical needs arising therefrom, the claimant is
entitled to reasonable compensation towards future medical expenses as well.
15 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -16-
Therefore, this court deems it fit to award Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of future
medical treatment.
25. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has
erred in not adding any amount for future prospects. In light of the settled position
of law relating to future prospects, and considering that the claimant was 50 years
of age at the time of the accident, an addition of 25% towards future prospects is
warranted. Additionally, as per the applicable multiplier table for the said age
group, a multiplier of 13 is required to be applied for the purpose of computing the
loss of dependency/earning capacity.
26. A further perusal of the award reveals that no amount is granted by
the learned Tribunal under the head of transportation, loss of amenities of life and
special diet. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
RELIEF
27. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award dated
31.08.2010 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.9,000/-
2 Loss of future prospects (25%) Rs.2,250/-
(25% of Rs.9000/-)
3 Annual Income Rs.1,35,000/-
(Rs.11250/- X 12)
4 Loss of future earning on Rs.94,500/-
account of 70% disability (Rs.1,35,000/- X 70%)
5 Multiplier of 13 Rs.12,28,500/-
(Rs.94,500 X 13)
6 Medical Expenses Rs.4,000/-
7 Pain and suffering Rs.12,00,000/-
16 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
FAO-1383-2011 (O&M) -17-
8 Attendant Charges Rs.2,00,000/-
9 Transportation Charges Rs.1,00,000/-
10 Loss of amenities of life Rs.4,00,000/-
11 Future medical expenses Rs.3,00,000/-
12 Special Diet Rs.3,00,000/-
13 Disability Rs.1,40,000/-
14 Total compensation awarded:- Rs.38,72,500/-
15 Deduction:- Rs.1,51,000/-
Amount awarded by Tribunal
16 Enhanced amount of Rs. 37,21,500 /-
compensation (38,72,500- 1,51,000)
28. 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 Nadu 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.
29. Respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and owner, respectively) 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.
30. Needless to say that the issue of liability is kept open and the same
will be decided in terms of decision of FAO-7208-2010 titled as “Baljeet and
another vs Harkaur and another”.
31. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
24.02.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
17 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2026 23:00:13 :::
