Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bijender vs Balwan Singh And Ors on 19 March, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
-1-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)
BIJENDER (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
......Appellant
Vs.
BALWAN SINGH AND ORS.
......Respondents
Reserved on: 06.03.2026
Pronounced on: 19.03.2026
Uploaded on: 24.03.2026
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. Baljeet Nain, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate
for respondent No.4-Insurance Company.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
17.09.2010 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, Jind (in short ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted
to the claimant (since deceased) to the tune of Rs.1,57,000/- along with interest @
7.5 % per annum on account of injuries sustained by the claimant (since deceased)
– Bijender in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 21.07.2009.
1 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-2-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)
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 (since deceased)
contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower
side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be
allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be enhanced, as
per latest law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4-Insurance
Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that
the amount of compensation as assessed by Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted
to the appellant/claimant. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case with their able assistance.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of
compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of Raj
Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, has
held as under:-
General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short)
makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that
compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately
restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object
of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of
wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and2 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-3-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)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 :
(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. The3 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-4-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)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 :
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
4 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-5-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)(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:-
” 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
5 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-6-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)
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
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.
6 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-7-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)
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/-
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/-
7 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-8-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)
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 claimant (since deceased) was
stated to be 32 years old at the time of the accident. He was stated to be employed
as driver on a milk tanker. To substantiate the same, salary disbursement register
(Ex.P-1) was produced vide which salary was shown as Rs.4,480/-. However,
ignoring the same the learned Tribunal has assessed his salary Rs.4,000/-,
therefore, considering the salary disbursement register, this Court deems it fit to
reassess the salary of the appellant/claimant as Rs.4,480/-.
10. 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, the learned Tribunal has erred in not applying the
multiplier, therefore, as per the settled law on compensation and considering the
age of the appellant as 32 years, multiplier of 16 would be applicable.
11. A further perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal has
awarded the compensation on the lower side to the claimant (since deceased)
under the heads of Pain and suffering, which is required to be enhanced.
12. 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 and grievous injuries on his person. Due to the
8 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-9-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)
injuries suffered, both his legs were crushed and after operation, rods were
inserted in both of his legs. Further PW-8 Dr. Rakesh Goyal, Senior Resident,
PGIMS, Rohtak deposed regarding his injuries while stating that he has suffered
fracture, bilateral plots and was operated for the same with malleolar screws, K.
wires and 1/3rd tubular plate. This fairly concludes the fact that the claimant have
suffered immense amount of pain and agony due to the accident in question.
13. 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.”
14. Therefore, in view of the above judgment and facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant
compensation of 5 lakhs under the heads of pain and suffering.
9 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-10-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)
15. A further perusal of the award reveals that the claimant has passed
away during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, the amount awarded for his
pain and suffering became part of his estate and he is liable to the compensation
awarded above even after his death.
16. The legal position on this issue stands conclusively settled by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhannalal @ Dhanraj (Dead) v. Nasir Khan, 2025
INSC 1177. The Apex Court authoritatively held that the amounts computed
towards medical expenses–both incurred and future–as well as expenses for a
personal attendant, are liable to be sustained where the injured victim survived for
a considerable period after the accident in a vegetative state. In such
circumstances, the Court observed that these amounts, having accrued during the
lifetime of the injured, form part of the estate of the injured-victim. Consequently,
upon the death of the injured, the legal heirs are legally entitled to recover the said
amounts as representatives of the estate.
17. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced
hereunder:
“12. The award of the Tribunal as modified and enhanced by the
High Court determined a total award of Rs.5,52,095/- as computed
under mental agony, pain and suffering, nourishment,
transportation and medical expenses, incurred and future, as also
expenses for a personal attendant which has to be sustained, since
the injured had lived for 11 years after the accident, in a vegetative
state. That has already become a part of the estate of the injured-
victim.”
18. Further perusal of the record shows that the appellant/claimant (since
deceased) suffered various grievous injuries on his body including amputation of a
leg making his life miserable. As a result, he had to depend on others for his daily
10 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-11-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)
activities and likely to have employed an attendant to assist him for his physical
movements. This Court has dealt with similar issue in case titled as Ajay Kumar vs.
Jasbir Singh and others, passed in FAO No 1356-2007, decided on 18.02.2025. The
relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
“ATTENDANT CHARGES
36. So far as attendant charges is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and others, 2020(2)R.C.R.(Civil) 27,
held that where injured was a female child aged about12 years and date
of the accident was 18.10.2007 and it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court that to determine the attendant charges, Multiplier system should
be applied. Relevant paragraphs No. 22 and 25 of the aforesaid judgment
are as under:
“22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court
at the rate of Rs.2,500 per month for 44 years, which works out
to Rs. 13,20,000. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper
system. Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors.
When compensation is awarded in lump sum, various facts are
taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in lump
sum, this court has always followed the multiplier system. The
multiplier system should be followed not only for determining the
compensation on account of loss of income but also for
determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was
recognized by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K.
Veluswami, 1958-65 ACJ 179 (SC).
The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of
interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the
claimant, and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life.
Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier method
has been recognized as the most realistic and reasonable method.
11 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-12-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)
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 amount which an attendant would demand is Rs.10,000/-.
Since two attendants are required for 100% disability, it would be
12 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-13-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)
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.
19. In view of the above judgment and considering age and disability
suffered by the appellant/claimant (since deceased), he is entitled to attendant charges
to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.
20. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has
awarded Rs.56,000/- to the claimant (since deceased) on account of his disability.
This amount has rightly been granted by the learned Tribunal as a separate head
from the loss of future income, therefore, this amount has rightly been awarded
13 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-14-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)
and no interference is warranted in this regard. Reliance on this question of law
can be placed upon the judgment of Apex Court titled as Kavin vs. P. Sreemani
Devi, (SC) 2025 INSC 1028. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as
under:-
“13. The Claims Tribunal further granted an amount of Rs. 3
lacs towards permanent disability suffered by the claimant.
This was after taking into consideration the 100% disability
suffered by the claimant. The High Court however set aside the
grant of compensation under this head by observing that as
compensation towards loss of income had been granted, further
amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards permanent disability was not
admissible. We do not find any basis whatsoever for this
approach of the High Court. The grant of compensation for
loss of future income is a distinct head from the one under
which compensation is granted for permanent disability. In
the light of the fact that the claimant suffered 100% permanent
disability and was living in a vegetative state, the High Court
was not justified in setting aside the grant of compensation
under this head. In our view, considering the nature of
disability suffered by the claimant, he would be entitled to
amount of Rs. 5 lacs under this head.”
21. A further perusal of the award reveals that meager amount is granted
by the learned Tribunal under the heads of transportation and special diet.
Furthermore, no amount was granted by the learned Tribunal for loss of amenities
of life. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
RELIEF
22. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award dated
17.09.2010 is modified. Accordingly, as per the settled principles of law as laid
14 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-15-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the legal representatives of
the claimant (since deceased) are held entitled to the enhanced amount of
compensation as calculated below:-
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Income Rs.4,480/-
2 Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.1,792/-
(40% of Rs.4480/-)
3 Annual Income Rs.75,264/-
(Rs.6272/- X 12)
4 Loss of future earning on Rs.21,074/-
account of 28% disability (Rs.75,264 /- X 28%)
5 Multiplier of 16 Rs.3,37,184/-
(Rs.21,074/-X 16)
6 Medical Expenses Rs.40,000/-
7 Pain and suffering Rs.5,00,000/-
8 Attendant Charges Rs.1,00,000/-
9 Transportation Charges Rs.50,000/-
10 Loss of amenities of life Rs.2,00,000/-
11 Disability Rs.56,000/-
12 Special Diet Rs.50,000/-
13 Total compensation awarded:- Rs.13,33,184/-
14 Deduction:- Rs.1,57,000/-
Amount awarded by Tribunal
15 Enhanced amount of Rs.11,76,184/-
compensation (13,33,184- 1,57,000)
23. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176
and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil 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.
24. Respondent No.4-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed
15 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::
-16-
FAO-1965-2011 (O&M)
to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest to the legal
representatives of claimant (since deceased).
25. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
19.03.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub/Saahil JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
16 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 24-03-2026 22:25:26 :::