Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdeep Singh vs Rafia Mohammed & Ors on 24 April, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
-1-
FAO-5635-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5635-2016 (O&M)
Jagdeep Singh ......Appellant
Vs.
Rafia Mohammed and ors. ......Respondents
Date of Reserve: 23.04.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 24.04.2026
Uploaded on:- 04.05.2026
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: Ms. Sonia Monga , Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate and
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No. 3-Insurance Co.
*****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
25.09.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimant to
the tune of Rs.15,25,920/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, on account of
injury suffered by him in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 08/09.10.2013.
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
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-2-
FAO-5635-2016
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, she 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 respondent No. 3-Insurance Co.,
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:-
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 theGAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-3-
FAO-5635-2016damages 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
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-4-
FAO-5635-2016
amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of
expectation of life.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above :
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do
not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the
whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of
loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of
earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent
disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of
evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the
same as percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined
him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can
give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The
loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by
the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons,
depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age,
education and other factors.
20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained below
with reference to the following
Illustration ‘A’ : The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and
earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident. As per 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:
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-5-
FAO-5635-2016
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
(70% of the expected annual income) : Rs. 42000/-
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-6-
FAO-5635-2016
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.”
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-7-
FAO-5635-2016
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. 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
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-8-
FAO-5635-2016
2011 to January 2013. The nature of injuries had been set out as
under:
“Nature of injury:
(i) compound fracture shaft left humerus
(ii) fracture both bones left forearm
(iii) compound fracture both bones right forearm
(iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand
(v) subtrochanteric fracture right femur
(vi) fracture shaft femur
(vii) fracture both bones left leg
We have also perused the photographs annexed to the
petition showing the current physical state of the appellant,
though it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent State
Corporation that the same was not on record in the trial court.
Be that as it may, this is the position even after treatment and
the nature of injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has
been opined in para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that
while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on
advancement in life and career are also to be taken into
consideration.
We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is
merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid
principles with regard to future prospects must also be applied
in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as
31.1%. The quantification of the same on the basis of the
judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), more
specifically para 61(iii), considering the age of the appellant,
would be 50% of the actual salary in the present case.
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as
12%
In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered
down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in
view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish’s
case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious
dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once
the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates
applied by this Court.
CONCLUSION
8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled
principles, the calculation of compensation by the appellant, as
set out in para 5 of the synopsis, would have to be adopted as
follows:
Heads Awarded
Loss of earning power Rs. 9,81,978/-
(Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-9-
FAO-5635-2016
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.
9. A perusal of the award reveals that the appellant/claimant was stated
to be 21 years of age at the time of the accident. A further perusal of the impugned
award reveals that the claimant/appellant has sustained multiple injuries because
of the accident resultantly rendered him 80% disabled due to which there was an
amputation of his right lower limb. The disability certificate (Ex P2) was placed
on record to prove the said disability. Furthermore, to substantiate the same, Dr.
K.K. Bansal, SMO one of the member of the Medical Board has been examined
and during his cross examination nothing material has been extracted to point any
major infirmity in the disability certificate (Ex P2). Therefore, the disability
certificate is genuine and can be duly relied upon.
10. Furthermore, the claimant/appellant has stated himself to be doing the
business of agriculture and was also stated to be running a Milk Dairy but nothing
cognigent evidence was placed on record to substantiate the same. Thereafter, the
learned Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant/appellant as Rs.7,000/- per
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-10-
FAO-5635-2016
month as per the wages fixed by Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula for the
relevant year. Therefore, this does not require any interference by this Court.
11. Further perusal of the award reveals that the claimant, due to the
unfortunate accident, has suffered not only grave physical disability but also a
complete loss of his earning capacity. Even if the claimant is presumed to be a
labourer, the nature of his occupation, being self-employed, necessarily involved
substantial physical activity, mobility, and sustained effort. In such circumstances,
the amputation of his right lower limb and the associated complications effectively
render him incapable of pursuing his vocation.
12. At this juncture, it is apposite to reiterate that the Motor Vehicles Act
is a beneficial legislation intended to provide fair, adequate, and just compensation
to victims of road accidents. The concept of “just compensation” has been
authoritatively explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and
another v. Jabir Kaur and others, AIR 2003 SC 3696, wherein it was held that
compensation must strike a balance–it should neither be a windfall nor a
pittance, but must be fair, reasonable, and commensurate with the loss suffered.
The determination, though not susceptible to precise mathematical calculation,
must be based on a judicious and rational assessment of the facts and
circumstances of each case.
13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, this Court is of
the considered view that although the claimant has been certified to have suffered
80% permanent physical disability, the impact of such disability on his earning
capacity is far more severe. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the
avocation of the claimant, he is, for all practical purposes, rendered wholly
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-11-
FAO-5635-2016
incapable of earning his livelihood as before. Consequently, his functional
disability is assessed at 100% for the purpose of computation of compensation.
14. Furthermore, the nature of injuries, particularly amputation of a lower
limb, stands conclusively established from the medical evidence on record. In
such circumstances, the requirement of an artificial limb is not merely incidental
but inevitable. Accordingly, the claimant/appellant requires a prosthetic limb.
15. Further perusal of the award reveals that claimant has placed on
record Bill (Ex. P3 and P4) for the purchase of endolite above knee prosthesis but
failed to prove the same and the learned Tribunal has correctly not taken into
consideration the above mentioned bills.
16. It is pertinent here to mention that Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
Kumari Laxmisree v. Managing Director, KSRTC Depot, Bengaluru, 2025 (2)
TAC 475, while considering a similar situation, has recognized the necessity of
awarding adequate compensation towards not only the initial cost but also the
future maintenance and replacement of prosthetic limbs, and has accordingly
granted substantial compensation under that head.
17. More recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana
Roadways, 2026 INSC 396, has delivered a highly erudite judgment addressing
the jurisprudential basis for the computation and award of compensation under the
head of “prosthetic limb” in motor accident cases.
18. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:-
“18. For the compensation of prosthetic limb(s), no amount
has been awarded by the Tribunal or the High Court. It is
undisputed among all parties that the appellant is entitled to be
compensated towards the cost of purchase of prosthetic limb(s)GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-12-
FAO-5635-2016and its maintenance. The only question is, what should be the
compensation which is payable.
19. Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
mandate is to determine a ‘just compensation’. Pasayat J.,
speaking for this Court in State of Haryana and Another v.
Jasbir Kaur and Others, (2003) 7 SCC 484 held as under:-
“7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal
constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is
required to make an award determining the amount of
compensation which is to be in the real sense
“damages” which in turn appears to it to be “just and
reasonable”. It has to be borne in mind that
compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be
weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to
be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected
to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions
clearly indicate that the compensation must be “just” and
it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the
same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals
have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the
amount of compensation, which should be just. What
would be “just” compensation is a vexed question.
There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for
measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure
of damages cannot be arrived at by precise
mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the
particular facts and circumstances, and attending
peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or
mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be
considered in the background of “just” compensation
which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of
the expression “which appears to it to be just” a wideGAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-13-
FAO-5635-2016discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination
has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach
and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and
arbitrariness. The expression “just” denotes
equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-
arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C.
Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC [(1999) 1 SCC 90].”
(Emphasis supplied)
20. As rightly held in Jasbir Kaur (supra) compensation for
loss of limbs can hardly be weighed in golden scales and one
cannot expect a mathematical exactitude in arriving at a just
and reasonable recompense.
21. This Court in Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Transport
Corpn., (1992) 2 SCC 5676 regarding assumed life span of a
claimant held as under:-
“6. This Court in Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam, 1987
ACJ 172 has observed that the span of life should be
taken to be 70 years in view of the high rise in life
expectancy. It is specially so in the case of Army
officers who are disciplined to live an active and
energetic life. The courts below were not justified in
taking the normal span of life to be 60 years and that of
an Army officer 56 years.”
(Emphasis supplied)
22. Further, this Court in Md. Shabir (supra) dealing with
compensation for purchase and maintenance of prosthetic limb
held as under: –
“23. As per the current compensation given for the
prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the
Appellant for only 15 years, even if we were to assume
that the limb would not need to be replaced after a few
years. The Appellant was only 37 years at the time of
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-14-
FAO-5635-2016
the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that
he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are
of the opinion that the Appellant must be compensated
so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in
his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till
he has reached 70 years of age. For the Prosthetic limbs
alone, the Appellant is to be awarded compensation of
Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be
awarded an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-.”
(Emphasis supplied)
23. What is crucial to note is, this Court fixed the assumed life
span of claimant as seventy years and also awarded
maintenance cost. This Court also held that average life of a
prosthetic limb would be a few years.
24. Our research led us to a web hosted PowerPoint
presentation titled “Prosthetic Claims – restitutio in integrum?”
by Mr. Steve Love, KC. We have found the presentation,
especially the case law referred to therein which we have
examined, very useful for the adjudication of the present case.
Are Courts Bound By The Governmental Rates Under The
Notification? :-
25. In David Pinnington (supra), recognizing the entitlement
of the disabled individual to opt for a prosthetic limb from a
Private Centre and recognizing the legitimacy of computing
that amount as a reasonable compensation, it was held: –
“49. Again it seems to me to be very much a matter for
the judge to assess. There was not the evidence, as there
just might have been in Woodrup, to entitle the judge to
indulge in the kind of speculation that Mr. Cotter urged
on us. This was a case in which, bearing in mind what
he is entitled to do under the 1948 Act, the judge was
entitled to find that it was reasonable for Mr.GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-15-
FAO-5635-2016Pinnington to acquire this range of devices and renew
them once every five years. He would be acting
reasonably in acquiring them from a private centre
which would provide him properly for his needs in
what is very much a very personal affair…..”
(Emphasis supplied)
26. In similar vein, Lloyd Jones J. A (suing by her litigation
friend Mrs H) v. Powys Local Health Board, [2007] EWHC
2996 (QB) held that if the treatment claimed by the claimant is
reasonable, it is no answer for the defendant to point to
cheaper options. This principle was extended to assessment of
damages in respect of aids and equipment, as is clear from the
following extracts from Powys (supra).
“94. The basis of assessment is the test of reasonableness
as stated in Rialis v. Mitchell, (Court of Appeal, 6 July
1984) and Sowden v. Lodge [2004] EWCA Civ 1370,
[2005] 1 All ER 581, [2005] 1 WLR 2129. The Claimant
is entitled to damages to meet her reasonable
requirements and reasonable needs arising from her
injuries. In deciding what is reasonable it is necessary
to consider first whether the provision chosen and
claimed is reasonable and not whether, objectively, it is
reasonable or whether other provision would be
reasonable. Accordingly, if the treatment claimed by the
Claimant is reasonable it is no answer for the
Defendant to point to cheaper treatment which is also
reasonable. Rialis and Sowden were concerned with the
appropriate care regime. However, the principles stated
in those cases apply equally to the assessment of
damages in respect of aids and equipment. In
determining what is required to meet the Claimant’s
reasonable needs it is necessary to make findings as toGAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-16-
FAO-5635-2016the nature and extent of the Claimant’s needs and then
to consider whether what is proposed by the Claimant
is reasonable having regard to those needs. (Massey v.
Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust
[2007] EWHC 317 (QB), Teare J at para 59; Taylor v.
Chesworth and MIB [2007] EWHC 1001 (QB) Ramsay
J at para 84.”
(Emphasis supplied)
27. Hence, we have no hesitation in rejecting the rates
prescribed in the Government Notification relied upon by the
Insurance Company which, in any event, are abysmally low.
28. P. Ramanatha Aiyar in his “Advanced Law Lexicon” (3rd
Edition 2005) defines restitutio in integrum as follows:-
“To restore parties to their original position restitution to
the original condition”.
Extending the principle of restitutio in integrum to cases of
provision for prosthetic limbs after holding that claimants are
entitled to their own choice of procuring a prosthetic limb
without relying on the National Health Service, and
recognizing the right of periodic replacement, it was held
in Kerry Donnelly v. Fas Products Ltd 2004 S.CLR 678 UK,
as under: –
“41. …..She is not obliged to use the National Health
Service in order to acquire a prosthesis: Law Reform
(Personal Injuries) Act 1948, section 2(4). While I
cannot be certain that the pursuer will in fact choose to
replace her prosthesis every year, I consider that she is
entitled to be put into such a position that she is able to
do so. A prosthesis is a poor substitute for lost fingers
but it is the only substitute that is available. The
principle of restitutio in integrum applies. If it is
necessary for the pursuer to succeed in recovering theGAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-17-
FAO-5635-2016whole life cost of replacement that I find that
she probably will replace the prosthesis each year by
private purchase (assuming that she is placed in such a
financial position as to allow her to do so), then I make
that finding……”
(Emphasis supplied)
The only caveat is that the claim should be reasonable. What is
also significant to note is the entitlement of the claimant to
replacement cost has been recognized.
29. Nearer home, in the case of Chandra Mogera (supra),
Sanjay Karol J. speaking for this Court said: –
“10. The appellant, on account of the amputation above
knee would require a prosthetic limb. It is a fact that a
prosthetic limb, which is an aid for mobility, is not
permanent in nature. It generally has a limited span of
usability and usually requires replacement once every 5
years in order to function effectively. The appellant was
aged 29 years at the time of filing of the present appeal,
and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live
at least till the age of 70 years, as a conservative
estimate, if not more. Therefore, he would require
prosthetic replacement at an interval of every 5 years
until he attains the age of 70 years………..”
11. We find that in recent cases the claim for
compensation against the head of prosthetic limb has
often come up for consideration before this Court.
Almost in every case, no estimate for cost is provided,
either as the basic cost of procurement or for periodic
maintenance thereof. It is, as such we direct that
henceforth whenever a claim for grant of
compensation under the head of Prosthetic
Limb/Artificial Limb is filed, then the same shall be
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-18-
FAO-5635-2016
accompanied with requisite quotations from at least
two or three service providers, enabling the Tribunal to
make an informed assessment of the actual cost which
may be incurred in the future.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
This Court in Chandra Mogera (supra), held that the life span
as five years for an artificial limb and the age up to which
compensation for artificial limb is to be computed as seventy
years. Most importantly, this Court also laid down that
henceforth whenever a claim for grant of compensation under
the head of prosthetic limb/artificial limb is filed the same shall
be accompanied with requisite quotations from at least two or
three service providers enabling the Tribunal to make an
informed assessment. We concur with the said view and
reiterate the said holding.
30. As would be clear from the discussion hereinabove, our
Court has recognized a block of five years as the reasonable
replacement period for a prosthetic limb, and we have followed
the same.
31. The appellant was thirty-two years in 2007. Applying an
assumed life span of seventy years as the maximum for which
as a standard formula compensation for prosthetic limb is
awarded and calculating the life of one prosthetic limb as five
years, the appellant will need seven prosthetic limbs. Insofar as
the price is concerned, the appellant has claimed the 2007
price for the first block with interest @ 9 per cent. Though he
has claimed for eight limbs the correct proportion to award
would be seven limbs, since the amputation happened on
17.07.2009.
32. We are inclined to award, like in Md. Shabir (supra), a
consolidated amount towards the price. We are inclined to
grant Rs. 3,00,000/- per limb on a standard basis for seven
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-19-
FAO-5635-2016
limbs. In view of the fact that a consolidated amount is being
paid, no interest from the date of the accident is awarded.
Considering that the price has been arrived at by broadly
applying the case Md. Shabir (supra), which we find
reasonable, we are not inclined to proceed on the basis of the
notification relied upon by the Insurance Company.
33. We are also inclined to award cost of maintenance of
prosthetic limb at Rs.15,000/- annually. For a block of five
years, it would work out to approximately Rs. 75,000/-. We
award a consolidated sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- till the assumed life
span of seventy years.”
19. In view of the aforesaid facts and above referred to judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the nature of permanent disability suffered by the
claimant, and the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that
a consolidated amount of ₹25,00,000/- would be just, fair, and reasonable
compensation towards the cost of procurement, maintenance, and future
replacement of the artificial limb.
20. Furthermore, learned Tribunal has gravely erred while awarding less
amount towards future prospects to the income of the claimant, which is contrary to
the settled principles of law. Therefore, 40% future prospects is to be awarded to the
claimant-appellant, as per settled law.
21. A further perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal has
awarded the compensation on the lower side to the claimant under the head of
Pain and suffering, which is required to be enhanced.
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘KS Muralidhar versus R
Subbulakshmi and another 2024 INSC 886 highlighted the intangible but
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-20-
FAO-5635-2016
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.”
23. Therefore, in view of the above judgment and facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under the heads of pain and suffering.
24. Furthermore, meager amount has been awarded by the learned
Tribunal under the head of special diet and no amount has been awarded under the
head of transportation charges and attendant charges. Accordingly, the impugned
award warrants interference and indulgence of this Court for appropriate
enhancement of compensation.
RELIEF
25. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award dated
25.09.2015 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:-
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-21-
FAO-5635-2016
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Income Rs.7,000/-
2 Loss of future prospects Rs.2800/- (40% of Rs.7000/-)
(40%)
3 Annual Income Rs.1,17,600/- (Rs.9800 X 12)
4 Loss of future earning on Rs.117600/- (Rs.1,17,600/- X 100%)
account of 100% disability
5 Multiplier of 18 Rs.21,16,800/- (Rs.117600X 18)
6 Pain and suffering Rs.3,00,000/-
7 Transportation Charges Rs.50,000/-
8. Attendant Charges Rs.50,000/-
9. Special Diet Rs.1,00,000/-
10. Prosthetic limb Rs.25,00,000/-
11 Total compensation Rs.51,16,800/-
awarded:-
12 Deduction:- Rs.15,25,920/-
Amount awarded by
Tribunal
Enhanced amount of Rs.35,90,880/-
compensation (51,16,800- 15,25,920)
26. 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 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.
27. Respondent No. 3-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 directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-22-
FAO-5635-2016along with interest in the account of the claimant/appellant. The
claimant/appellant is directed to furnish his bank account details to the Tribunal.
28. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
23.04.2026
Gaurav Arora
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
GAURAV ARORA
2026.05.04 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link
