Punjab-Haryana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Sher Singh And Ors on 12 March, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
..Appellant
Versus
SHER SINGH AND OTHERS
..Respondents
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO
Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES
Reserved on: 13.02.2026
Pronounced on: 12.03.2026
Uploaded on: 18.03.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. K.P.S. Virk, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ram Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)
FAO-31-2018
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance
company against the award dated 18.08.2017 passed in a claim petition filed
under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the
appellant-Insurance company was fastened with the liability to pay the
compensation of Rs.4,74,077/- to the claimant along with interest @ 9 % per
annum from the date of filing of claim petition till recovery.
1 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -2-
XOBJC-114-2018
2. The present cross-objection has been preferred by respondent
No.1/cross-objector/claimant against the award dated 18.08.2017 passed in
the claim petition filed under Section 166 and 140 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 cross-objector/claimant to the tune of Rs.4,74,077/- along with interest
@ 9 % per annum on account of injuries sustained by the respondent
No.1/cross-objector/claimant – Sher Singh in a motor vehicular accident,
occurred on 17.11.2015.
3. Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross-
objections filed by the claimant/cross-objector are arising out of the same
award dated 18.08.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, FAO-31-
2018 and XOBJC-114-2018 are decided vide this common judgment.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.11.2015 at about 1:00
p.m., Dinesh Kumar, since deceased, was heading from Village Payaga to
Mahendergarh on the motorcycle No. HR34G/7433 being ridden by him on
extreme left side of road at moderate speed as per traffic rules. Petitioner
Sher Singh was travelling as pillion rider on the said motorcycle. After a
short riding towards Mahendergarh – Narnaul road then a Haryana Roadways
Bus, Depot Charkhi Dadri bearing Temporary no. HR-99VC(T)/7936 now
bearing Regd. No. HR-61C/0566 (in short offending vehicle), being driven
by respondent no. 1 at a high speed in rash and negligent and in zig-zag
manner, flouting all traffic rules came from Mahendergarh side and hit
2 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -3-
against the motorcycle in their lane. Consequently, they alongwith the
motorcycle fell down on the road causing them multiple and grievous
injuries besides damages to the motorcycle. The rider Dinesh Kumar
succumbed to the injuries on the spot whereas pillion rider Sher Singh
(Petitioner in II petition) was seriously injured and one bystander namely
Rakesh (Petitioner in III petition) also received injuries in the accident. After
the accident, the respondent no.1 fled from the spot leaving behind the
offending bus. The aforesaid accident had taken place due to sole rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Thereafter, the
dead body of Dinesh Kumar was shifted to mortuary and petitioners/injured
Sher Singh and Rakesh were shifted in General Hospital, Mohindergarh..
5. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents therein appeared
and contested the claim petition by filing separate written statement denying
the factum of accident/compensation.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:-
“1. Whether petitioners Rakesh and Sher Singh received
injuries while Dinesh Kumar died in a motor vehicular
accident which took place on 17.11.2015 at about 1:00 PM in
the area of village Payaga under P.S. Mohindergarh due to
rash and negligent driving of Bus no. HR-61-C/0566 by
respondent no.1? OPP
2. If issue no. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to
get compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven by
respondent no. 1 in violation of terms and conditions of
insurance policy? OPR3
4. Relief.”
3 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -4-
7. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their
respective pleadings.
8. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence
on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant.
However, the liability to pay compensation was fastened upon the appellant-
Insurance Company. Hence, the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends
that the driver-respondent No. 3 (arrayed as respondent No. 1 before the
Tribunal), was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the
bus at the time of the accident. It is submitted that the driving licence of the
said driver did not bear the requisite endorsement for driving a Public
Service Vehicle (PSV). Consequently, the offending bus was allegedly being
plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On this
premise, it is argued that the learned Tribunal has erroneously fastened the
liability upon the Insurance Company. He further contends that
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side,
therefore he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the award passed
by the learned Tribunal be set aside.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant/cross-objector
contends that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award. However, he
contends that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower
side. He further contends that he has filed cross-objection bearing
No.XOBJC-114-2018 seeking enhancement of compensation, therefore, he
4 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -5-
prays that the appeal filed by the insurance company be dismissed and the
compensation be enhanced as per the settled law.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of the case with their able assistance.
12. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-
“19. Dinesh Kumar died in this accident and petitioners
Bimla Devi and Anju Devi claimed compensation on
account of his death being his widow and daughter
respectively. At the time of assessing compensation, the
Tribunal has to see income and the age of deceased. It has
been pleaded that Dinesh Kumar was 54 years of age at
the time of his death and he was drawing ₹ 55,000/- per
month salary from Forest Department of Govt. of
Haryana. In this regard, the evidence of PW-7 Ravinder
Pal Yadav, Assistant, DFO, Mahendergarh is relevant. He
proved that deceased Dinesh Kumar had worked as
forester in his department and getting ₹ 45052/- salary
per month at the time of his death. He proved the Service
Certificate Ex. PW7/A and Salary Certificate Ex. PW7/B
pertaining to deceased Dinesh Kumar. In his
crossexamination, this witness testified that date of birth
of Dinesh Kumar in their record was 02.03.1961 and was
to be retired at the completion of his age 58 years. The
widow of the deceased is receiving ₹ 42,238/- per month
from the department in lieu of salary of deceased likely to
get until retirement age of the deceased. He further
admitted that 29,822/- has ₹ been received after
deduction by the widow in the month of October, 2015.
Thus, it stands proved that petitioner Bimla Devi being
widow of deceased Dinesh Kumar is receiving an
equivalent amount from the Govt. department in lieu of
salary of the deceased. Therefore, the amount which the5 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -6-widow would get has to be deducted in view of the latest
judgment of Reliance General Insurance Company vs.
Shashi Sharma 2016 (4) RCR (Civil) 569.
20. The deceased’s gross salary was 45052/- which can be
₹ rounded off to ₹ 45000/- and addition of 30% has to be
made towards future prospects as the deceased was in a
permanent job and his GPF was being deducted and he
was receiving HRA and DA. Thus, the income would come
to ₹ 58,500/- per month. The deceased was married and
died leaving the petitioners, who are widow and daughter
respectively. The petitioners are two in number, hence
1/3rd of the earning of the deceased is to be deducted
towards personal expenses and remaining 2/3rd share
shall be considered as loss of dependency to the
petitioners. So, after deducting 1/3rd as his personal
expenses, his contribution towards his family comes to ₹
39,000/- per month. The annual contribution comes to ₹
4,68,000/-The date of birth of Dinesh Kumar in
matriculation Certificate Ex. P22 and Ex. PW7/A was
02.03.1961 and the accident occurred on 17.11.2015,
therefore, the deceased was 54 years of age at the time of
his death. So, just and reasonable multiplier in this case is
’11’ and amount of compensation comes to be ₹ 4,68,000
x 11 = ₹ 51,48,000/-. The petitioner No.1 Bimla Devi
would also be entitled to additional sum of 1,00,000/- for
loss of consortium & estate. Both petitioners would ₹
further be entitled to 1,00,000/- for love and affection
besides 14,000/- ₹ ₹ towards performance of last rites as
so ruled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled
as Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others 2013(3)
RCR (Civil) 16. In this manner, petitioners would be
entitled to total compensation of (₹ 51,48,000 + 1,00,000
+ 1,00,000 + 14,000) = ₹ 53,62,000/-. The widow will get
( 45000 x 12 x 4) = ₹ ₹ 21,60,000/- as salary for 4 years6 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -7-under 2006 Rules. Therefore, net amount of compensation
payable would be 53,62,000 – 21,60,000 = 32,02,000/-. ₹
₹ So, the petitioners are entitled to ₹ 32,02,000/- as
compensation on account of the death of Dinesh Kumar.
29. As the offending vehicle was being driven by
respondent no.1 therefore, primary liability to compensate
the petitioners is that of respondent no. 1. As the
offending vehicle was also owned by respondents no. 2 &
3 so, they becomes vicariously liable to compensate the
petitioners. It is an admitted position on record in view of
Ex. R5 that the offending vehicle was insured with
respondent no. 4. Therefore, respondent no. 4 becomes
contractually liable to compensate the petitioners for the
above mentioned amount. The respondent no.1 was
having valid driving licence Ex. R2 at the time of accident
which was valid upto 09.06.2017 whereas accident
occurred on 17.11.2015. valid permit of offending bus is
also available on record as Ex. RW1/D. No evidence led
to prove violation of terms of insurance policy. Thus,
Issue No. 2 & 3 is accordingly decided in favour of the
petitioners and against the respondents.”
13. A perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal, after
appreciating the material available on record, concluded that the driver of the
offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the
time of the accident. The driving licence (Ex. R2) was valid up to
09.06.2017, whereas the accident occurred on 17.11.2015. The Tribunal also
noticed that the valid permit of the offending bus was placed on record as
Ex. RW1/D.
14. In view of the said evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly held
that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance
7 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -8-
policy. No cogent evidence was led by the Insurance Company to establish
that the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the policy
conditions or that the driver was not duly authorized to drive the vehicle in
question.
15. It is well settled that the burden to prove breach or violation of
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy lies upon the Insurance
Company. Such burden must be discharged by leading convincing and
reliable evidence. In the present case, the appellant-Insurance Company has
failed to discharge the said burden. Consequently, the finding recorded by
the learned Tribunal fastening liability upon the Insurance Company cannot
be faulted.
16. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the
findings returned by the learned Tribunal on this aspect, and the same
deserve to be upheld.
17. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company with regard to the quantum of compensation
is concerned, the same is being dealt with while deciding the cross-
objections filed by the claimants/cross-objectors.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
18. 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 that8 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -9-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).
9 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -10-
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
10 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -11-
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 :
11 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -12-
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)].
19. 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.”
20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs. State
Express Tran. Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has held as under:-
12 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -13-” 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;
13 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -14-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 on14 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -15-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 Rs.4,90,989/-
cent addition)
Medical expenses including Rs.18,46,864/-
transport charges,
15 of 23
::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -16-
nourishment, etc.
Loss of matrimonial Rs.5,00,000/-
prospects
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.
XOBJC-114-2018
21. A perusal of the award reveals that the respondent No.1/cross-
objector/claimant was stated to be 60 years of age. The disability certificate
(Ex. PW10/A) has been placed on record to substantiate the same. Therefore,
the age of the respondent No.1/cross-objector/claimant can be rightly
assessed as 60 years.
22. Furthermore, it has come on record that the respondent
No.1/cross-objector/claimant was retired from service and was receiving
pension of ₹5985/- per month, which shows by the document Ex.PA-3
(retirement pension). Further, Disability Certificate (Ex. PW10/A) showing
72% permanent disability on account of Moderate Ataxia and Mild Mental
Retardation, has been placed on record. The said disability certificate has
been duly proved by PW10, who was one of the members of the Medical
Board constituted on 15.03.2017 for assessment of the disability of
respondent No.1 /cross-objector/claimant. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal
has rightly treated his disability as 100% functional disability.
16 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -17-
23. A perusal of award reveals that the learned Tribunal has not
awarded any compensation towards loss of income to respondent No.1/cross-
objector/claimant on the ground that no evidence was produced to show that
respondent No.1/cross-objector/claimant was not paid salary after the
accident and that he was receiving retirement pension.
24. However, the reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal cannot
be accepted in its entirety. Merely because the injured was a government
employee and continued to receive salary during the period of medical leave
and was subsequently granted pension, it does not ipso facto mean that he
did not suffer any loss of earning capacity. The material on record shows that
the cross-objector/Sher Singh has been assessed to have suffered 100%
functional disability. Such disability inevitably affects the capacity of a
person to effectively discharge his duties and also deprives him of the
opportunity to continue in service or to undertake any future gainful
employment.
25. In the present case, due to the injuries sustained in the accident,
the injured was compelled to remain on prolonged medical leave and
ultimately retired from service. Had the accident not occurred, he could have
re-employed or work after retirement. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand, this Court deems it appropriate to assess
his future income loss as Rs.5,800/- per month as minimum wages for
skilled worker in Haryana to meet the ends of justice.
26. A further perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal
has awarded the compensation on the lower side to the claimant/cross-
objector under the heads of Pain and suffering, which is required to be
17 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -18-
enhanced. 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 respondent No.1/cross-
objector/claimant suffered injuries and fractures due to the accident in
question.
27. 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
of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just,
fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.”
28. Therefore, in view of the above judgment and facts and
circumstances of the present case keeping in view 100% functional disability
of respondent/cross-objector, this Court deems it appropriate to grant
compensation of Ten lakhs under the heads of pain and suffering.
18 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -19-
29. Further perusal of the record shows that the respondent
No.1/cross-objector/claimant suffered various grievous injuries on his body
making his life miserable. As a result, he has to depend on others for his daily
activities and likely to have employed attendant to assist him for his 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 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 uncertainties19 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -20-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 the appellant-claimant
would require trained attendant i.e. who should have knowledge
of nursing and experience as well. Further the minimum amount20 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -21-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.
30. In view of the above judgment and considering age and 100%
functional disability suffered by the respondent No.1/cross-objector/claimant-
Sher Singh, the respondent No.1/cross-objector is entitled to attendant charges
to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.
31. Furthermore, keeping in view the nature of injuries and the
permanent disability suffered by respondent No.1/cross-objector/claimant, it
cannot be ruled out that he may require continuous medical care, treatment
and assistance in future. Considering the gravity of disability and overall
21 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -22-
circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and appropriate to award a
sum of ₹1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses.
32. Further perusal of the award reveals that no future prospect has
been awarded by the learned Tribunal, therefore, 10% should be awarded for
future prospects as per the settled law.
33. A further perusal of the award reveals that no amount is granted
by the learned Tribunal under the heads of transportation charges and loss of
amenities of life. Furthermore, meager amount is awarded under the head of
special diet, therefore, the award requires interference and indulgence of this
Court
RELIEF
34. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed and the
cross-objection is allowed and award dated 18.08.2017 is modified.
Accordingly, as per the settled principles of law as laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court as mentioned above, the respondent
No.1/cross-objector/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 (10%) Rs.580/-
(10% of Rs.5800/-)
3 Annual Income Rs.76,560/-
(Rs.6380/- X 12)
4 Loss of future earning on Rs.76,560/-
account of 100% disability (Rs.76,560 /- X 100%)
5 Multiplier of 9 Rs.6,89,040/-
(Rs.76560/-X 9)
6 Medical expenses Rs.4,44,077/-
7 Pain and suffering Rs.10,00,000/-
8 Attendant Charges Rs.2,00,000/-
9 Transportation Charges Rs.50,000/-
22 of 23
::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::
FAO-31-2018 (O&M)
XOBJC-114-2018 -23-
10 Special Diet Rs.1,00,000/-
11 Medical expenses for future Rs.1,00,000/-
treatment
12 Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/-
13 Total compensation awarded:- Rs.26,83,117/-
14 Deduction:- Rs.4,74,077/-
Amount awarded by Tribunal
15 Enhanced amount of Rs.22,09,040/-
compensation (26,83,117 - 4,74,077)
35. 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 respondent
No.1/cross-objector/claimant is granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the
enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its
realization.
36. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of
two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is
directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with
interest in the account of the respondent No.1/cross-objector/claimant. The
respondent No.1/cross-objector/claimant is directed to furnish his bank
account details to the Tribunal.
37. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
12.03.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub/Saahil JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
23 of 23
::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2026 20:45:31 :::