Punjab-Haryana High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sandeep Singh And Others on 26 February, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Singh and others ....Respondents
Reserved on:- 25.02.20266
Pronounced on:- 26.02.2026
Uploaded on:- 06.03.2026
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. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate
for the appellant-Insurance Company.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate,
for respondent No.1/cross-objectors.
Mr. Parveen, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 and 3.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
1. The aforesaid appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company
and the Cross-Objections filed by respondent No.1/claimant against the
same award dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Narnaul (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) are being decided by way of this
common judgment. For brevity, facts have been taken from FAO-2438-
2025.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -2-
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M)
2. The present appeal has been preferred by appellant-Insurance
Company for setting aside the award dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned
Tribunal under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
whereby, respondent No.1/claimant was awarded a compensation of
Rs.62,89,480/- along with interest @ 6% per annum on account of injuries
sustained by respondent No.1/claimant and the appellant-Insurance
Company was held liable to pay the compensation.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.04.2021, the claimant was
proceeding from his residence to his agricultural fields on his motorcycle
bearing registration No. HR-34K-5326. At about 9:00 PM, when he reached
near PNB, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-19Q-5357,
being driven by respondent No.1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner, came from the Mohindergarh side and, while coming onto the
wrong side of the road, struck against the motorcycle of the claimant. As a
result of the said impact, the claimant along with his motorcycle fell on the
road and sustained multiple grievous injuries on his person. The accident
was witnessed by Rajbir Singh, uncle of the claimant. In this regard, FIR
No.90 dated 12.04.2021 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC was
registered at Police Station Sadar Mohindergarh.
4. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and
filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -3-
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:-
1. Whether the accident in question took place on account
of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent
no.1 by driving vehicle bearing registration No. HR-19Q-
5357? OPP.
2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation
and from whom the petitioner is entitled? OPP.
3. Whether respondent No.1 did not hold a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of accident and
whether the terms and conditions of the insurance policy
stood violated? OPR
4. Relief.
6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence
on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.62,89,480/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of
injuries sustained by respondent No.1/claimant and the appellant-Insurance
Company was held liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the Insurance
Company filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 03.02.2025
passed by the learned Tribunal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends
that learned Tribunal has erred in holding that accident in question took
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -4-
place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. Furthermore
contends that there was delay of four days in lodging the FIR and the
offending vehicle was falsely implicated in the FIR. Furthermore contends
that income of respondent No.1/claimant is assessed on higher side.
Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned
award of the learned Tribunal be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/cross-
objectors contends that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the accident
in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
He further contends that the compensation awarded is on lower side and
respondent No.1/claimant has filed cross-objections i.e. XOBJC-69-2025 for
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Therefore,
he prays that the cross-objections be allowed and the compensation awarded
by the learned Tribunal be enhanced as per the latest law.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case.
10. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant extracts of the
award as under:-
“ISSUE NO.1:
11. The onus to prove this issue has been placed upon the
claimant. In order to prove the factum of accident, involvement
of the offending vehicle in the said accident and the fact that it
was respondent No.1, who was driving the offending vehicle in
a rash and negligent manner resulting into injury to claimant
examined Rajbir Singh eye witness. He stepped in the witness
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -5-
box as PW4 and tendered his affidavit Ex. PW4/A, reiterating
the averments mentioned in the petition. The said witness has
given a detailed account of the said accident including rash and
negligent driving of respondent No.1 resulting into the injuries
sustained by Sandeep Singh/injured. He further deposed that
Sandeep Singh had spent an amount of about ₹40 lakh on his
treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, special
diet and attendant etc. PW3 Ankit mother of the claimant has
also supported the claim of the claimant while tendering her
affidavit Ex.PW3/A.
12. To prove the fact that respondent No.1 was driving the
offending vehicle and that too in a rash and negligent manner,
counsel for the claimant has also placed on record the certified
copy of final report submitted by the police as envisaged under
Section 173 Cr.P.C as Ex. P200. Perusal of the same reveals to
this Tribunal that during investigation, respondent No.1 was
found on the wheels of the offending vehicle. He was arrested
and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against him to stand trial for the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC for driving
the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and for causing
grievous injuries to claimant Sandeep Singh. 13. However,
there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same more
particularly when respondent No.1 in his written statement has
taken a categorical stand that no such accident had taken place
with the offending vehicle and a false case was registered
against respondent No.1, because in these circumstances, it was
incumbent upon respondent No.1 to examine himself to refute
the statement of Rajbir Singh PW4 eye witness, but neither he
dared to enter into the witness box on his own nor any attempt
was made in this regard by respondent no.1 for the reasons best
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -6-
known to him, which requires to draw an adverse inference that
he did not adopt any such exercise intentionally and
deliberately, knowing well that respondent No.1 would not be
able to face the test of his cross-examination being guilty in his
mind for causing this accident. Reference in this regard may
also be made to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in 1999(2) Civil Court Cases (SC)1, Ishwar Bhai C
Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel Versus Harihar Behera and
another wherein it has been held that where a party does not
enter in the witness box to make statement on oath in support of
his pleadings, in that event an adverse inference would be
drawn that what it has stated in the pleadings, is not correct.
Reliance in this regard has also been placed on the case law
titled as Raju Versus Sukhwinder Rai 2006 (4) RCR (Civil)
83, wherein it is held that when the driver of offending vehicle
is not coming forward to depose before the court regarding his
false implication in the case or does not come forward to deny
his negligence, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn
against him.
14. It is now settled that registration of criminal case against
the driver of the offending vehicle for causing accident by rash
and negligent driving is a prima-facie proof that the accident
was a result of rashness and negligence on his part as settled in
Girdhari Lal Versus Radhey Shyam & Ors. 1993 (2) PLR.
109. It is a further settled proposition of law that in motor
vehicle accidents claim cases, the approach to find out who was
rash and negligent in causing the accident is different from the
one when a person is challaned in a criminal court on a
culpable charge. The burden of proof on the petitioners is not
that heavy as is required to prove a criminal charge for rash
and negligent driving of the vehicle.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -7-
15. In the present case, the fact that the police had challaned
respondent No.1 for the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, shows that the
investigating agency had reached the conclusion that
respondent No.1 had caused the accident by his rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 did
not make any complaint to the concerned SHO or higher police
officers regarding his false implication.
16. More so, registration of FIR Ex.P199 and submission of
challan Ex.P200 by the police in the court after collecting
evidence against respondent No.1, and framing of charges
Ex.P201 against the respondent no.1, prima-facie further prove
involvement of the offending vehicle and causing of the accident
by him while driving it in a rash and negligent manner.
Reliance can be placed on the observations made by our own
Hon’ble High Court in Girdhari Lal (Supra).
17. This Tribunal bestowed its thoughtful consideration to
the issue in hand. It is well settled that in accident claim cases
the burden to prove negligence of the driver of offending
vehicle upon the claimant is not as strict as it is on the
prosecution in criminal matters. The law with regards to
compensation in accident claim cases is a beneficial piece of
legislation. These cases are not to be viewed with high-powered
spectacles or microscopes, but a pragmatic approach is
adopted. Rather evidence in these cases is appreciated on the
basis of preponderance of probabilities. Even the strict rules of
Cr.p.c. and Evidence Act do not apply in these cases.
18. Hence, in view of the above discussion, it is held that the
accident causing injuries to claimant Sandeep Singh had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle i.e. Maruti car bearing registration HR-19Q/5357 by
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -8-
respondent No.1. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of
the claimant and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2:
19. The claimant Sandeep Singh has claimed compensation
on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road side
accident. It has been submitted that the claimant had sustained
multiple serious injuries on his head and other part of his body
including fractures due to which he was taken to Nandini
Hospital Mohindergarh, from where he was referred to higher
centre. However, he was taken to Matrika Hospital, Rewari,
where he remained admitted from 08.04.2021 to 30.04.2021.
The claimant is still in Coma. The claimant remained admitted
under treatment in various hospitals. ₹40 lacs were spent on his
treatment, transportation, medicines, special diet etc.
20. In order to prove the injuries suffered by the claimant in
the said accident, he has examined Rakeh medical record
keeper Priyush Neuro and Superspeciality Hospital, Jaipur
as PW1. He brought the summoned record pertaining to
patient Sandeep Singh and has deposed that the patient was
admitted in their hospital on 31.07.2021 with the history of
road traffic accident and was discharged on 14.09.2021. He
proved final bill Ex.P1 and medical bills/receipts Ex.P2 to
Ex.P44, discharge summary Ex.P45, OPD slip Ex.P46 and
treatment record Ex.P47.
21. Dr. Kanwar Singh, Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital,
Narnaul as PW2. He deposed that on 16.06.2023, he was the
member of the disability Board at General Hospital, Narnaul.
On that day, Sandeep Singh appeared before the Board and
after his examination, the board assessed his permanent
disability 100% on account of C/o head injury with uncrsen
with spastic quadriparesis with bladder bowel, involvement
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -9-
vide PGIMS Rohtak report NS/23/886 dated 16.05.2023. he
proved the disability certificate Ex.PW2/A.
22. Claimant further examined Anil Kumar, Medical
record keeper, Matrika Hospital, Rewari as PW5. He
brought the summoned record pertaining to patient Sandeep
Singh. He deposed that the patient was admitted in their
hospital on 08.04.2021 with alleged history of road traffic
accident and was discharged on 30.04.2021. He deposed that
the patient was again admitted in their hospital on20.07.2021
and was discharged on 23.07.2021. he deposed that patient was
further admitted in their hospital on 14.09.2021 and was
discharged on 21.09.2021. He proved the discharge summaries
Ex.P49 to Ex.P51 respectively, OPD slips Ex.P52 to Ex.P58,
investigation reports Ex.P59 to Ex.P61, MLR Ex.P62, ruqa
Ex.P63, final bills Ex.P64 to Ex.P66, medical bills/receipts
Ex.P67 to Ex.P182.
23. It is mentioned by the claimant in his petition that he is
age about 24 years. He was driver by occupation. He was also
doing the work of animal husbandry. He used to earn ₹30,000/-
per month. To prove the said fact, the claimant has produced
heavy driving licence Ex.198. The present petition has been
filed by the mother of the claimant being next friend. The
claimant is stated to be in Coma. Meaning thereby, the
claimant is not in condition to drive the vehicle. Therefore, this
Tribunal observes that the disability relates to whole body.
Therefore, in the light of the nature of injury sustained by
claimant Sandeep and in the light of recital with regard to
nature of injury sustained by claimant Sandeep i.e. on account
of C/o head injury with uncrsen with spastic quadriparesis with
bladder bowel, involvement vide PGIMS Rohtak report
NS/23/886 dated 16.05.2023, this Tribunal concludes that the
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -10-
claimant Sandeep Singh had sustained disability which is
permanent in nature and the disability relates to whole body.
24. However, the claimant has proved on record that he had
sustained disability qua whole body and it is proved on record
that the claimant Sandeep Singh unable to carry on activities as
a result of his permanent disability which he was earlier doing.
Therefore, this Tribunal observes that he had sustained
disability to the extent of 100% in the light of the document
Ex.PW2/A. Therefore, he will be entitled to seek compensation
in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in case titled as Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254, Raj Kumar Vs.
Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 and G Ravindranath Vs.
E.Srinivas 2013 (12) SCC 455 under the following heads:–
(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).
Treatment, hospitalization, and medicines, expenses:-
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -11-
25. It is the case of the claimant that he had spent
₹40,00,000/- on his treatment, but there is nothing on record to
prove the aforesaid facts. Further, the claimant has placed on
record the bills regarding the payments made by him for
various other procedures, laboratory tests and medicines
amounting to ₹10,11,980/- as per bills Ex.P1, Ex.P2 to Ex.P4,
Ex. P64 to Ex.P66, Ex.P67 to Ex.P182, which remained un-
rebutted on the case file.
26. In Smt. Parsanni Devi Versus Sube Singh & Others,
2011 (2) PLR-764, it has been held by Hon’ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court as under:-
“that practice of merely marking medical bills, but not
exhibiting without any evidence and looking for proof by
examination of a chemist is quite a needless exercise.
Tribunals must be more pragmatic in their approach
while dealing with cases of motor accident victims and
invoking the powers which are vested in them under
Sections 168 and 169 in such a fashion that they do not
shackle themselves by unrealistic procedures to meet the
ends of justice. Unless the bills seem fabricated or there
is something more peculiar at the trial to doubt
genuineness of the bills, the Tribunal dealing with motor
accident cases ought not to be looking for evidence
through a chemist who had issued bills. The production
of bills relating to purchase of medicines during the
period of hospitalization and oral evidence given by
parties about purchase of medicines ought to be taken as
sufficient proof of authentication and admissibility of
these documents.”
27. Hence, this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that
total expenses incurred by the claimant Sandeep Singh on his
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -12-
medical treatment comes out to ₹10,11,980/- and he is entitled
for the same.
Loss of Income during the period of treatment:-
28. It is the case of the claimant that he was doing the driver
by occupation and was also doing the work of animal
husbandry and used to earn ₹30,000/- per month. He placed on
record his heavy driving licence Ex.P198, which proves this
court that he was driver by occupation. This fact has not been
refuted by the opposite party. It has also been proved on record
that the claimant has suffered 100% disability and is not in
condition to drive the vehicle. He is also stated to be in Coma.
Therefore, it is proved on record that he was driver by
occupation, but there is nothing on record to prove that what he
was earning. However, taking into consideration, his driving
licence Ex.P198, this Tribunal is of the view that he was a
driver by occupation. Therefore, the notional income of
claimant as skilled driver is taken to as ₹18,500/- per month
considering him to be self-employed. As such, the monthly
income of claimant Sandeep Singh is liable to be taken as
₹18,500/-.
29. As the claimant is stated to have suffered disability on
account of C/o head injury with uncrsen with spastic
quadriparesis with bladder bowel, involvement vide PGIMS
Rohtak report NS/23/886 dated 16.05.2023 and it has been
proved on record that he was admitted in Nandini Hospital,
Mohindergarh from where he was referred to higher centre. He
was shifted to Matrika Hospital, Rewari. He remained admitted
there from 8.04.2021 to 30.04.2021. He has visited many times
to Matrika Hospital, Rewari. He also remained under treatment
of various doctors in various hospitals. Meaning thereby, he
suffered loss of income for the relevant period. Hence, he is
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -13-
entitled to be compensated for ₹92,500/- (₹18,500 x 5) on
account of loss of income during the period of treatment.
Loss of future income:-
30. From the perusal of mark-sheet Ex.P220, the date of
birth of the claimant was mentioned as 17.08.1996. The
accident took place on 07.04.2021. Meaning thereby, he was
about 24 years of age at the time of accident. Therefore, it
transpired to this Tribunal that at the time of said accident, the
age of the claimant was 24 years. There is nothing on record to
rebut the authenticity of the said document. Hence, the age of
the claimant is to be taken 24 years at the time of said accident.
31. The disability of the claimant has already been assessed
to the extent of 100%.
32. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in case titled as National Insurance Company Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others reported as 2017 (4) RCR (Civil)
1009 and considering the age of the claimant about 24 years at
the time of said accident, an addition of 40% of income is to be
made towards future prospects to the income of the claimant.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and others 2009 (3) RCR Civil 77 ,
and considering the age of the claimant, multiplier of 18 would
be applicable.
33. Thus lastly, taking the support from the illustrations
given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Raj
Kumar’s case supra, calculation of compensation on account
of earning capacity will be as follows:-
(a) Monthly income before the accident = ₹18,500/-
(b) Increase towards future prospects @40% = ₹4625/-
(c) Annual income (₹18,500/- + ₹4625/- =
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -14-
₹23,125/- x 12) = ₹2,77,500/-
(d) Multiplier with reference to age = 18
(e) Income after applying multiplier
(₹2,77,500/- x 18) = ₹49,95,000/-
(f) Total loss of future earnings
(₹49,95,000/- x 100%) = ₹49,95,000
34. In addition to the said amount, the claimant must have
taken special diet during the course of his treatment. Therefore,
the claimant is hereby, held entitled to compensation in lieu of
special diet amounting to ₹50,000/-.
35. Further the claimant, after the accident, had shifted to
Nandini Hospital, Mohindergrh, from where he was referred to
higher centre. However, he was taken to Matrika Hospital,
Rewari. He was further taken to various hospitals and now he
is under treatment. Therefore, he is entitled for an amount of
₹20,000/- as transportation charges.
Non-pecuniary damages :
Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as consequence of
the injuries:-
36. The claimant remained admitted in the hospital and even
thereafter remained on bed for a considerable period. In the
facts of the case, considering the disablement of the claimant,
nature of injuries suffered by him, the period of hospitalization
etc., this Tribunal is inclined to award a sum of ₹50,000/- to the
claimant on account of pain and suffering. Loss of amenities:-
37. In view of the facts of the present case, it has come on
record that at the time of the said accident, the claimant was
about 24 years of age and he is having family and the family of
the claimant is fully dependent upon him, but he lost the
amenities of life due to permanent disablement. Hence, this
Tribunal is inclined to award a sum of ₹50,000/- under thisVIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -15-head.
Loss of expectation of life:-
38. In the facts of the present case, this Tribunal is inclined
to award a sum of ₹20,000/- on account of loss of expectation
of life.
39. In this way, the total amount of compensation payable to
the claimant works out to be ₹62,89,480/- (₹10,11,980/-
+92,500/-+49,95,000/- +50,000/-+20,000/-+50,000/-+50,000/-
+20,000/-).
40. The offending vehicle was fully insured on the date of
accident i.e. 07.04.2021 as is evident from the perusal of the
copy of the Insurance Policy Ex.R3, according to which the
offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 with effect
from 23.10.2020 to 22.10.2021. It being so, this Tribunal is of
the considered view that the claimant is entitled to receive the
amount of ₹62,89,480/- as compensation from the respondents.
Though, the liability is that of respondents No.1 and 2, yet in
view of the provisions of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
it shall be discharged by respondent No.3-insurance company
by making payment. Accordingly, the findings on issue No.2 is
returned in favour of claimant.
ISSUE NO.3 :
41. Onus to prove this issue has been placed upon
respondent No.3. However, respondent No.3-insurance
company has failed to discharge its burden that the respondent
No.1 had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy, because no evidence has been led by the insurance
company in this regard nor during the course of arguments, the
learned counsel for the insurance company has disputed this
fact. Further, the respondent no.1 has also placed on record his
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -16-
driving licence as Ex.R2. Perusal of the same reveals to this
Tribunal that the same was valid till 05.01.2035 for driving the
non-transport vehicle. As such, the respondent No.1 was having
the valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged
accident. Hence, the findings on issue No.3 are returned
against respondent No.3 and in favour of claimant.”
11. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned
Tribunal has meticulously appreciated the entire oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record and has returned a well-reasoned finding that
the accident in question occurred on account of the rash and negligent
driving of respondent No.2, the driver of the offending vehicle.
12. It transpires from the record that PW-4 the eye-witness to the
occurrence has given a cogent and consistent account of the sequence of
events leading to the accident. He unequivocally attributed negligence to the
driver of the offending vehicle. Though subjected to searching and lengthy
cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited to discredit his
testimony or to create any dent in his credibility. His deposition, therefore,
inspires confidence and rightly stood accepted by the learned Tribunal.
13. As regards the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company
concerning the four-day delay in lodging the FIR, the same is devoid of
merit. The delay stands satisfactorily explained by PW-4 Rajbir, who
categorically deposed that he remained occupied in attending to the injured
and arranging medical care, which naturally took precedence over initiating
criminal proceedings. His explanation remained unshaken in cross-
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -17-
examination.
14. It is well settled that in motor accident claim proceedings, delay
in registration of the FIR is not fatal, particularly when reasonably
explained. The standard of proof being preponderance of probabilities, such
delay, by itself, cannot be a ground to discard an otherwise credible and
consistent version.
15. It is further borne out from the record that respondent No.2
(driver of offending vehicle) is facing criminal trial arising out of the same
accident. It is well settled that registration of the FIR and the prosecution of
the driver constitute a strong prima facie proof of negligence, particularly
when read in conjunction with reliable ocular testimony and
contemporaneous documentary evidence.
13. The learned Tribunal has also correctly kept in view the settled
principle that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are
summary in nature and the standard of proof is that of preponderance of
probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the
respondent No.1/claimant has successfully discharged the said burden by
leading trustworthy and unrebutted evidence.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no
perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the
learned Tribunal on the issue of rash and negligent driving. The conclusions
drawn are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of
law. Accordingly, the findings on the issue of negligence are affirmed.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -18-
15. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the
respondent No.1/claimant on the higher side is concerned, the same is
without substance.
16. The record reflects that respondent No.1/claimant was a
professional driver and was also engaged in animal husbandry. In support of
his vocation, he placed on record a valid heavy motor vehicle driving licence
(Ex. P-198), which substantiates that he was duly authorized to drive
transport vehicles and lends credence to his assertion regarding his
occupation. Though no documentary proof of exact monthly income was
produced, the absence of formal proof is not uncommon in cases involving
self-employed persons or those engaged in the unorganized sector.
17. It is well settled that where documentary evidence of income is
not forthcoming, the Court may take recourse to minimum wages
notifications as a guiding factor; however, the same cannot be applied
mechanically. In Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar
Yadav & Ors., 2021 SCC Online SC 850, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that a reasonable element of estimation or guesswork, based on the nature of
employment and surrounding circumstances, is permissible while
determining income in motor accident cases.
18. In the present case, considering that the respondent
No.1/claimant possessed a heavy driving licence and was engaged in skilled
work, the assessment of monthly income at Rs.18,500/- by the learned
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -19-
Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. The determination is
reasonable, commensurate with his vocation, and calls for no interference.
The same is accordingly affirmed.
19. A perusal of the award further reveals that respondent
No.1/claimant was merely 28 years old at the time of accident and suffered
100% permanent physical disability on the account of C/o head injury with
unsrsen with spastic quadriparesis with bladder bowel. PW-2 Dr. Kanwar
Singh, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Narnaul, has proved
disability certificate (Ex.PW2/A). A perusal of the said disability certificate
reveals that respondent No.1/claimant has suffered 100% permanent
disability. A perusal of the award further reveals that respondent
No.1/claimant has remained hospitalized for a considerable period of time.
20. Moreover, it goes without saying that this Court is under an
onerous duty to award just and reasonable compensation, after duly
considering the nature of injuries suffered, their consequences, the resultant
functional disability, and the corresponding loss of earning capacity.
21. A further perusal of the award shows that the amount granted
under the head of ‘Pain and Suffering’ is on lower side. Reference at this
stage can be made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in
the case of K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and another 2024 SCC
Online SC 3385, has settled the law regarding grant of compensation under
the head of “Pain and Suffering”. The relevant portion of the
K.S.Muralidhar‘s case is reproduced as under:-
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -20-“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.”
22. Therefore, in view of the above judgment and prolonged
hospitalization and nature of injuries sustained by the respondent No.1/
claimant, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it appropriate to grant a
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under the head of ‘Pain and Suffering’.
23. Further perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal
has rightly awarded compensation under the heads of medical expenses.
However, it is evident from the award that the compensation awarded
towards attendant charges, loss of amenities, attendant charges, special diet,
transportation charges, loss of expectation of life is on lower side.
Furthermore, no amount was awarded towards loss of marriage prospects
and future medical expenses. Therefore, award requires indulgence of this
Court and compensation awarded is required to be recalculated as per settled
law.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -21-
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
24. Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of
compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 343, has held as under:-
General principles relating to compensation in injury
cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(‘Act’ for short) makes it clear that the award must be
just, which means that compensation should, to the extent
possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. The object of awarding
damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of
wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair,
reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal
shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude
from consideration any speculation or fancy, though
some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability
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).
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -22-
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 2026.03.06 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) & XOBJC-69-2025 -23- 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
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -24-
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
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -25-
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)].
25. 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;
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -26-
(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.”
26. 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
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -27-
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;
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -28-
(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:
compound fracture shaft left humerus
fracture both bones left forearm
compound fracture both bones right forearm
fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand
subtrochanteric fracture right femur
fracture shaft femur
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 StateVIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -29-Corporation that the same was not on record in
the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the
position even after treatment and the nature of
injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has
been opined in para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case
(supra) that while applying the multiplier
method, future prospects on advancement in life
and career are also to be taken into
consideration.
We are, thus, unequivocally of the view
that there is merit in the contention of the
appellant and the aforesaid principles with
regard to future prospects must also be applied
in the case of the appellant taking the permanent
disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the
same on the basis of the judgment in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), more
specifically para 61(iii), considering the age of
the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary
in the present case.
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest
rate claimed as 12%
In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant
has watered down the interest rate during the
course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial
pronouncements including in the Jagdish‘s case
(supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no
serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for
the respondent once the claim was confined to 9%
in line with the interest rates applied by this
Court.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -30-
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.
RELIEF
27. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the above referred to judgments, the present appeal filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed as being devoid of any merits, whereas, cross
objections filed by respondent No.1/claimant are hereby allowed. The
award dated 03.02.2025 is modified accordingly. The respondent
No.1/claimant (cross-objectors) is entitled to enhanced compensation as per
the calculations made here-under:-
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -31-Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.18,500/-
2 Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.7,400/- (40% of Rs.18,500/-)
3 Annual Income Rs.3,10,800/- {(18,500 + 7,400) X
12)
4 Loss of earning due to Rs.3,10,800/-
disability (100%) (100% of Rs.3,10,800/-)
5 Multiplier 18
6 Loss of future earning per Rs.55,94,400/- (Rs. 3,10,800 X 18)
annum
7 Medical Expenses Rs.10,11,980/-
8 Pain and Suffering Rs.10,00,000/-
9 Transportation charges Rs.70,000/-
10 Loss of marriage prospects Rs.5,00,000/-
11 Future medical expenses Rs.1,50,000/-
12 Special Diet Rs.2,00,000/-
13 Attendant Charges Rs.7,00,000/-
14 Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.93,26,380/-
DEDUCTION
Compensation awarded by Rs.62,89,480/-
the Tribunal
Enhanced Compensation Rs.30,36,900
28. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the respondent No.1/
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-2438-2025 (O&M) &
XOBJC-69-2025 -32-
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.
29. Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment. The learned Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced
amount of compensation along with interest in the account of respondent
No.1/claimant. The respondent No.1/claimant is directed to furnish his bank
account details to the Tribunal.
30. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
26.02.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Virender JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.03.06 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
