Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar vs Ramesh & Ors on 19 February, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-10471-2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-10471-2014 (O&M)
Reserved on: 18.02.2026
Date of decision: 19.02.2026
Uploaded on: 20.02.2026
Ashok Kumar ......Appellant
Vs.
Ramesh and others ......Respondents
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. Kunal Phogat, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. D.K.Dogra, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
Ms. Jyotsna, Advocate, for
Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate,
for respondents No.6-Cholamandalam MS Insurance Co. Ltd.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
20.05.2013 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (in
short ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the
appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.2,14,900/- along with interest @ 6% per
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -2-
annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in a motor
vehicular accident, occurred on 25.03.2010.
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 the respondents, however,
vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of
compensation as assessed by learned 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:-
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -3-
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
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -4-
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above :
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries),
do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the
whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the
percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the
percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the
percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases,
where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that
percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as
percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who
examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent
of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is
something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with
reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons,
depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job,
age, education and other factors.
20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained
below with reference to the following
Illustration ‘A’ : The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years
and earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident. As
per Doctor’s 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 :
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -5-
a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs. 36,000/- .
b) Loss of future earning per annum
(75% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 27000/-.
c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17
d) Loss of future earnings : (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/-
Illustration ‘C’ : The injured was 25 years and a final year
Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma
for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was
affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As
the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and
as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life,
the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as 70%.
The calculation of compensation will be as follows :
a) Minimum annual income he would
have got if had been employed as an
Engineer : Rs. 60,000/-
b) Loss of future earning per annum
(70% of the expected annual income) : Rs. 42000/-
c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) : 18
d) Loss of future earnings : (42000 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/-
[Note : The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are
hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based
on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra
(supra)].
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified
the law under 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:-
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -6-
” Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable
sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000,
Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of
revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But
the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric.
We think that it would be condign that the amount that we
have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis
in every three years and the enhancement should be at
the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed
to hold so because that will bring in consistency in
respect of those heads.”
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs.
State Express Tran. Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has held as under:-
” 7. There are three aspects which are required to be examined
by us:
(a) the application of multiplier of ’17’ instead of ’18’;
The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the
basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the
judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). In para 46 of the said
judgment, the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed the
multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the
case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the age
group of 15-25 years, the multiplier has to be ’18’ along with
factoring in the extent of disability.
The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned
counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus, we
come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be applied in the
case of the appellant has to be ’18’ and not ’17’.
(b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with
permanent disability of 31.1%
In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has claimed
compensation on what is stated to be the settled principle set
out in 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. TheVIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -7-award of compensation must cover among others, the
following aspects:
(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the
accident;
(ii) Loss of income including future income;
(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life
together with its amenities;
(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim
may be required to undertake in future; and
(v) Loss of expectation of life.”
[emphasis
supplied]
The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized in an
earlier judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case (supra)
opining that the multiplier method was logically sound and
legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a
result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident.
In the factual contours of the present case, if we examine
the disability certificate, it shows the admission/hospitalization
on 8 occasions for various number of days over 1½ years from
August 2011 to January 2013. The nature of injuries had been
set out as under:
“Nature of injury:
(i) compound fracture shaft left humerus
(ii) fracture both bones left forearm
(iii) compound fracture both bones right forearm
(iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand
(v) subtrochanteric fracture right femur
(vi) fracture shaft femur
(vii) fracture both bones left leg
We have also perused the photographs annexed to
the petition showing the current physical state of the
appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the
respondent State Corporation that the same was not on
record in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the
position even after treatment and the nature of injuries
itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in
para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while
applying the multiplier method, future prospects on
advancement in life and career are also to be taken into
consideration.
We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is
merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid
principles with regard to future prospects must also be
applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent
disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on the
basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -8-
(supra), more specifically para 61(iii), considering the
age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary
in the present case.
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate
claimed as 12%
In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has
watered down the interest rate during the course of
hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements
including in the Jagdish‘s case (supra). On this aspect,
once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the
learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was
confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by
this Court.
CONCLUSION
8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled
principles, the calculation of compensation by the
appellant, as set out in para 5 of the synopsis, would
have to be adopted as follows:
Heads Awarded
Loss of earning power Rs. 9,81,978/-
(Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100
Future prospects (50 per cent Rs.4,90,989/-
addition)
Medical expenses including Rs.18,46,864/-
transport charges,
nourishment, etc.
Loss of matrimonial prospects Rs.5,00,000/-
Loss of comfort, loss of Rs.1,50,000/-
amenities and mental agony
Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
Total Rs.41,69,831/-
The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the
compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
application till the date of payment.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -9-
9. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that claimant/
appellant-Ashok Kumar was aged merely 19 years at the time of the
accident. Further the deceased is stated to be employed as a cleaner / helper,
earning 5000/-. In absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate the
said earnings, the learned Tribunal resorted to minimum wage notification as
applicable to unskilled labourer in Haryana and assessed the income as
Rs.3,000/-. However, the said income is not in accordance with the
notifications. As per the notified minimum wages applicable to unskilled
workers during the relevant period, the correct monthly income ought to
have been assessed at Rs. 4502.98/-. Therefore, the monthly income of the
claimant may be reasonably rounded off and reassessed at Rs.4500/- per
month.
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 appellant/claimant. Therefore, as per the settled law on compensation
40% is to be added as future prospects.
11. The learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the permanent
disability of the appellant/claimant at only 20% to the whole body. This
finding is contrary to the medical evidence placed on record. The disability
certificate exhibited as Ex. P-1 clearly records that the appellant/claimant
was examined and assessed by the PW-2, Dr. Pardeep Kumar, SMO, General
Hospital, who opined that the appellant/claimant has suffered 40%
permanent disability on account of injuries of post polio paresis left limb,
right ankle and painful and tiff with restriction of movements. The
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -10-
assessment of disability at a reduced rate of 20% is wholly inadequate and
unjustified, especially considering that the disability is permanent in nature.
Due to the said injuries, the appellant/claimant shall be unable to perform
any physical work involving walking, standing, or prolonged movement
throughout his lifetime. The impairment has a direct and adverse impact on
his functional ability and significantly diminishes his prospects of securing
gainful employment in the future. It is a settled principle of law that while
determining compensation, the functional disability and its impact on the
victim’s earning capacity must be given due weight, rather than
mechanically reducing the percentage of medical disability. In this regard,
reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul
Ganpatrao Sable v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2023(9) scale 970,
wherein, the Apex Court held that in cases where the nature of the disability
effectively incapacitates a person from pursuing any meaningful
employment, the functional disability must be evaluated in terms of the
resultant loss of earning capacity, and not merely on the basis of medical
assessment. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:
“14. The five injuries which are permanent in nature
apparently make him unfit for any employment even though the
disability may be 60% or 85%. The compression fractures of
seven cervical vertebra resulting into Paraplegia and further
loss of bladder function make it absolutely impossible for a
person to work and be gainfully employed. Considering the
nature of disability, loss of income, is, thus, held to be 100%
and not 50% as held by the High Court.”
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -11-
12. Therefore, in order to serve the ends of justice, the permanent
disability of the appellant/claimant deserves to be assessed at 40%, as duly
certified by the medical expert, and the compensation ought to be
recalculated accordingly.
13. A further perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal
has awarded the compensation on the lower side to the claimant under the
heads of Pain and suffering, which is required to be enhanced.
14. It is trite that permanent disability suffered by an individual not
only impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities, but there are
multiple non-quantifiable implications for the victim. Further, the very fact
that healthy person turns into invalid being deprived of normal
companionship and incapable of leading a productive life makes one suffer
loss of dignity. As per the facts of the case the claimant suffered multiple
injuries on his person. Due to the injuries, he has suffered permanent
disability. He was unable to walk freely. As mentioned above, on
assessment of disability by PW-2, the disability was assessed at 40%. The
said doctor also proved disability certificate (Ex.P-1). This fairly concludes
the fact that the claimant have suffered immense amount of pain and agony
due to the accident in question.
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘KS Muralidhar versus
R Subbulakshmi and another 2024 INSC 886 highlighted the intangible
but devastating consequence of pain and suffering. The relevant portion of
the same is reproduce as under:-
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -12-
“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.”
16. Therefore, in view of the above judgment and facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant
compensation of 03 lakhs under the heads of pain and suffering.
17. Further perusal of the record shows that the appellant/claimant
suffered various grievous injuries on his body making his life miserable. As
a result, he had to depend on others for his daily activities and likely to have
employed an attendant to assist him for his physical movements. This Court
has dealt with similar issue in case titled as Ajay Kumar vs. Jasbir Singh
and others, passed in FAO No 1356-2007, decided on 18.02.2025. The
relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
“ATTENDANT CHARGES
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -13-
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. It ensures
better justice between the parties and thus results inVIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -14-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
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -15-would be required. Further 100% disability of the appellant-
claimant would require trained attendant i.e. who should have
knowledge of nursing and experience as well. Further the
minimum amount which an attendant would demand is
Rs.10,000/-. Since two attendants are required for 100%
disability, it would be appropriate to take the minimum
amount of Rs.10,000/- each of two attendants i.e. amounting
to Rs.20,000/- for two attendants.
38. In the instant case, there is substantial medical
evidence establishing that the injured appellant-claimant has
suffered from a 100% disability of the lower limb, as per Ex.
P-4. Over the past 20 years since the accident on 31.05.2005,
the injured has faced significant challenges in leading a
normal life. Furthermore, medical testimony confirms that
the injured person is unable to carry out daily activities
independently.
39. Applying the principles laid down in Kajal‘s case
(supra) it is evident that the appellant-claimant requires
continuous assistance from two attendants for 24 hours a
day. In Kajal‘s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
emphasized that the multiplier system must be followed to
determine attendant charges, taking into account factors such
as longevity, inflation, interest rates, and the uncertainties of
life. The Court also highlighted that an individual with severe
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -16-disabilities requires dedicated attendants, even if they are not
medically trained, to ensure proper care and prevent further
complications such as bedsores.
18. In view of the above judgment and considering age and
disability suffered by the appellant/claimant, the appellant is entitled to
attendant charges to the tune of Rs.80,000/-.
19. A further perusal of the award shows that the learned tribunal
erred in not awarding any amount of compensation under the head of ‘loss of
marriage prospects’, despite the claimant being only 19 years old at the time
of the accident and having his entire life before him. The learned Tribunal
failed to consider the impact of his injury on his ability to marry, find a life
partner, and enjoy normal matrimonial prospects. Hon’ble the Supreme
Court, in its decision in Rahul Ganpat Rao Sable versus National
Insurance Company, 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 574 squarely addresses this
omission and recognizes that such non-pecuniary loss arising from
permanent disability including loss of marriage prospects deserves just
compensation.
20. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
“Loss of Marriage prospects:
20. No compensation has been awarded under the above
head. Considering the nature of injuries duly approved
and certified, the appellant would be entitled to
compensation under loss of marriage prospects. Again,
relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -17-Chaus Tausif Almiya (supra), we award a fixed
compensation of Rs.3 lakhs under the said head.In view
of the above, this Court in the interest of justice is
awarding 50000 under the conventional head of ‘loss of
marriage prospects.”
21. Therefore, in accordance with the above referred to judgment,
this Court deems it fit to award Rs.4,00,000/- under the head of loss of
marriage prospects.
22. A further perusal of the award reveals that meager amount is
granted by the learned Tribunal under the heads of transportation.
Furthermore, no amount is granted under the heads of heads of loss of
aminities, special diet and future medical treatment. Therefore, the award
requires indulgence of this Court.
RELIEF
23. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award
dated 20.05.2013 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.4,500/-
2 Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.1,800/-
(40% of Rs.4,500/-)
3 Annual Income Rs.75,600/-
(Rs.6,300/- X 12)
4 Loss of future earning on Rs.30,240/-
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -18-
account of 40% disability (Rs.75,600/- X 40%)
5 Multiplier of 18 Rs.5,44,320/-
(Rs.30,240/-X 18)
6 Medical Expenses Rs.68,267/-
7 Pain and suffering Rs.3,00,000/-
8 Attendant Charges Rs.80,000/-
9 Transportation Charges Rs.70,000/-
10 Loss of amenities of life + Rs.6,00,000/-
Loss of marriage prospects
12 Special Diet Rs.1,00,000/-
13 Future Medical Expenses Rs.2,00,000/-
14 Total compensation Rs.19,62,587/-
awarded:-
15 Deduction:- Rs.2,14,900/-
Amount awarded by Tribunal
16 Enhanced amount of Rs.17,47,681/-
compensation (19,62,587 - 2,14,900)
24. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State
Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the amount
so calculated shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petition, till the date of realization.
26. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount along with interest in the first instance with the Tribunal
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment. However, recovery rights are given to respondent No.3-Insurance
Company to recover the said amount from respondents No.1 and 2 (driver
and owner, respectively.) The Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-10471-2014 -19-
amount of compensation along with interest to the appellant-claimant. The
claimant/appellant is directed to furnish his bank account details to the
Tribunal.
26. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is hereby directed to
disburse the current scheduled fee to Mr. D.K.Dogra, Advocate, pursuant to
the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO-1682-2007 within a period of 20
days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
27. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
19.02.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Virender JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.02.20 19:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
