Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 13 February, 2026
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA-2351-2017 (O&M)
Reserved on: 22.01.2026
Pronounced on: 13.02.2026
Uploaded on: 13.02.2026
Sandeep Kaur
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. G.S. Punia, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Harveen Kaur, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
*****
VIKAS SURI, J.
1. The present intra-court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters
Patent, has been filed by the petitioner-appellant being aggrieved by the
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition
has been dismissed in limine, by concluding that the same is not
maintainable.
1.1 The two-fold prayer before the writ Court was for issuance of
a mandamus directing re-investigation of case FIR No.128 dated
29.10.2013 registered at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib,
under Section 338 IPC, alleging that the investigation has been done
1 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:20 :::
-2-
LPA-2351-2017
under the influence of respondent Nos.5 and 6; and also for issuance of an
appropriate direction awarding damages to the tune of Rs.1 Crore to the
petitioner as she has become 100% permanently disabled owing to the
wall collapse incident in which she suffered grievous injuries and
vertebral fractures.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ
petition involved two aspects of the matter, one being the criminality of
the actions/omissions leading to the incident wherein the appellant
suffered 100% disablement and the other with regard to tortuous liability
for which the claim for compensation has been raised.
3. Briefly, the appellant is stated to have been a final year
student, at the time of the incident, enrolled in B.Sc. course with Desh
Bhagat University (respondent No.5) (hereinafter referred to as “the
University”), which is managed by Aasra Foundations (Regd. Society
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860) (respondent No.6).
3.1 On 11.10.2013, the appellant went to the bathroom in the
university campus along with her friend Kamal. While her friend was
inside the bathroom, she sat right outside on the chair of chowkidaar. On
the fateful day, owing to a storm of dust, the wall of the bathroom
collapsed and unfortunately, she was trapped beneath the debris, which
resulted in fracture of her backbone.
3.2 The appellant was taken to the Civil Hospital, Mandi
Gobindgarh, in the bus of the University, for first-aid. Due to her
lamentable condition on the account of the bathroom wall having fallen
on her, she was referred to Government Medical College & Hospital,
2 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-3-
LPA-2351-2017
Sector 32, Chandigarh and was transported there in an ambulance. It is
averred that as nobody was attending to her in the manner required, she
was thereafter shifted to Alchemist Hospital, Sector 21, Panchkula. It is
also averred that the University Authorities promised to meet all the
expenses, however, they deposited Rs.2,25,000/- only up till 18.10.2013
and thereafter, did not meet any expense, medical or otherwise.
3.3 On the statement of the appellant, case FIR No.128 dated
29.10.2013, under Section 338 IPC was registered at Police Station
Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. It is alleged that the police authorities
did not investigate as to who was negligent regarding the repair and
construction of the wall and, for extraneous consideration, only accused
one Vishal Sharma, an employee of the respondent University, who was
discharged vide order dated 18.04.2017 by the learned trial Court.
4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the
concerned University Authorities have not been made an accused by the
prosecution and therefore, the appellant had sought re-investigation. It is
further submitted that on account of the medical condition of the
appellant, which has not improved much since the fateful day, she sought
for a direction to be awarded damages as she has been rendered 100%
disabled on account of negligence of the authorities in not performing
their duties and insuring proper construction and maintenance of the
University buildings. Reliance is placed upon the decision rendered by the
Hon’ble Madras High Court in WP No.19260 of 2002 decided on
14.08.2008 titled as V. Subramaniam vs. State of Tamil Nadu and
others, reported in 2010 ACJ 1861.
3 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-4-
LPA-2351-2017
5. Upon notice of the appeal, the respondent authorities have
opposed the claim of the petitioner-appellant by filing reply wherein it is
submitted that the supra FIR No.128 dated 29.10.2013 was registered
against Vishal Sharma, who stands discharged vide order dated
18.04.2017. The incident has not been denied though the same was
referred to as unfortunate. It is further submitted that the respondent
University has borne the entire expenses incurred on the treatment of the
petitioner/appellant, who has approached the Writ Court after four years
of the incident. It is further stated that in case the appellant has any
grievance with regard to the investigation or discharge of the accused
Vishal Sharma, she could have availed a legal remedy by challenging the
discharge order dated 18.04.2017 and the writ petition is not maintainable,
as such. It is also stated on behalf of the University Authorities that the
University has, on affidavit, offered to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakh to the
appellant as full and final amount towards her claim which is otherwise
not maintainable and furthermore, a suitable employment has also been
offered to the appellant or any eligible member of her immediate family,
subject to fulfillment of the requisite qualifications and conditions for the
said post. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have reiterated that the liability to pay
any compensation cannot be fastened upon them as the bathroom wall has
not fallen due to any negligence on the part of the respondent University.
Learned counsel for the respondent University has thus defended the order
passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition as not
maintainable.
4 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-5-
LPA-2351-2017
6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant at the very outset
seeks liberty to approach the appropriate authority regarding redressal of
the appellant’s grievance as far as the aspect of criminality behind the
incident is concerned. However, he seeks to agitate his actionable claim,
qua the civil liability, in the shape of claim for award of damages/
compensation. There is no serious opposition to the plea to approach the
appropriate authority, but the claim for damages is hotly contested. At this
stage, the appellant submits that he does not press the present appeal qua
the prayer in the writ petition seeking re-investigation with liberty to
pursue her remedy before the authorities concerned. Ordered accordingly.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
have perused the material placed before us, with their able assistance. We
have given our anxious consideration upon the submissions made on
behalf of the contesting parties.
8. The primary question which arises for consideration in the
present appeal is whether, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case, the writ petition claiming compensation is maintainable or
not. In case, the said question is answered in affirmative, then a secondary
question would for consideration with regard to the method for
determining damages and as to what would be just and fair compensation.
9. It is not disputed that the appellant was a final year B.Sc.
course student of the respondent University and was 23 years of age on
the date of the unfortunate incident, i.e. 11.10.2013, when she suffered
grievous injuries due to the wall of bathroom falling upon her, in the
University campus.
5 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-6-
LPA-2351-2017
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of
maintainability of writ petitions claiming compensation against injury
caused by the State’s inaction in the decision in S.S. Ahluwalia vs. Union
of India and others, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 452, wherein the relevant
direction, which is extracted hereinafter, was given since the claim in
those writ petitions were made directly before the Supreme Court seeking
compensation for the victims of riot, which took place at various locations
across the country due to assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi:
“……. Therefore, it would be appropriate for us to
direct the High Courts of Delhi, Rajasthan, Orissa,
Punjab and Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Patna,
Madhya Pradesh, Allahabad and Bombay in the States
of Delhi, Rajasthan, Orissa, Haryana, Himachal
Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh,
Maharashtra and Goa to deal with the matter in respect
of the allegations made herein in respect of the State
falling in their jurisdiction by treating the writ petition
as a petition filed in that High Court. These
proceedings, therefore, shall stand transferred to the
respective High Courts. A copy of the petition with
annexures and response of the respective State
Governments shall be sent to the High Court for
appropriate action.”
11. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the High
Court of Gujarat to consider the claims of riot victims of communal clash
that arose in the State of Gujarat due to Godhra incident in National
Human Rights Commission vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in
(2004) 8 SCC 610, with the following observations:
6 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-7-
LPA-2351-2017“8. In our view, these all are issues which can be
raised in the pending writ petitions before the High
Court since the High Court would have the jurisdiction
to consider each of the grievances raised. In fact,
having regard to the nature of the claim it will be more
appropriate, that the High Court should deal with the
issues raised in the first instance.”
12. A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in WP
No.33517 of 2018 decided on 19.04.2021 titled as A. Saraswathy vs. The
Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu and others,
reported in 2021(4) MLJ 1, held the municipality concerned liable to pay
compensation. In the said case, on the fateful night, as there was heavy
rain, the petitioner’s husband took cover under the shade of a toilet
building in Palladam Bus Stand maintained by the Palladam Municipality.
Due to heavy downpour, the roof of the toilet collapsed, crushing the
petitioner’s husband to death and injuring another person. It was alleged
that because of the negligence on the part of the Municipality in
maintaining the toilet building, the building had collapsed, taking away
the life of the petitioner’s husband. In the said case, it was conceded that
the accident had occurred due to the fall of a shed, which was fixed on the
ceiling of the toilet, resulting in the death of the petitioner’s husband.
However, it was pleaded that it was a natural calamity and there was no
negligence on the part of the Municipality and it was not responsible for
the fall of the shed as the toilet was maintained properly and the building
was stable and in a sound condition. Considering the facts of the said case,
it was held that the shed was part of the toilet building and therefore, the
Municipality concerned alone could be held negligent for the falling of the
7 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-8-
LPA-2351-2017
shed on the petitioner’s husband. It was concluded that it was the
Municipality’s negligence due to which the accident had occurred,
resulting in the death and the Municipality was liable to pay compensation
by placing reliance upon another Division Bench judgment titled as The
Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by
the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water
Supply Department and another, reported in 2017(2) CTC 119. In the
said case, a tree planted and maintained by the corporation fell on a car,
resulting in loss of life. Opposing the writ petition for payment of
compensation, the corporation raised the contention that it was an ‘act of
God’. Rejecting the said contention, it was held that writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked for payment of
compensation and it is a public law remedy which can be availed by
fixing tortuous liability on the State. Accordingly, the compensation
awarded by the writ Court was upheld.
13. In the case at hand, undisputedly, the bathroom was situated
on the University campus itself and being property of the University, it
was under the control and maintenance of the University authorities. The
incident of the wall of the bathroom falling upon the appellant is admitted,
whereby the appellant has suffered grievous injuries that have rendered
her 100% permanently disabled, in relation to her whole body, as per the
disability certificate dated 30.04.2016 issued by the Civil Surgeon,
Sangrur (Annexure P-5).
14. Negligence, in common parlance, means and implies failure
to exercise due care, expected of a reasonably prudent person. It is a
8 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-9-
LPA-2351-2017
breach of duty or lack of proper care in doing something, ranging from
inadvertence to shameful disregard of the safety of others. In most
instances, it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence, by which the
negligent party is unaware of the results which may follow from his act. In
short, it is want of attention and doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do (vide Black’s Law Dictionary).
15. Negligence is an independent tort and has its own strict
elements. It is evident from the record in the present case that the building
in question belongs to the respondent University, which is liable to
maintain the institution/campus buildings so as not to endanger the life
and property of the students and others present on the campus. In fact, the
level of precaution that ought to have been exercised would be much
higher when the institution is an educational institution. In the light of the
aforesaid factual matrix, the doctrine of ‘vicarious liability’ would be
attracted. The respondent University having failed to bring any material
on record to demonstrate that it was not liable to maintain the bathroom
on the University campus, the liability of the University authorities,
derived from its relationship with the negligent officials, would be truly
vicarious.
16. The maxim of res ipsa loquitur would also be applicable in
the instant case. The rule constitutes an exception to the general rule that
the claimant seeking damages for an injury must prove the negligence of
the alleged wrongdoer. The Latin phrase literally translates to “the thing
speaks for itself” and is applied in cases where the facts are such that the
harm could not have been caused but for the lack of due care and caution
9 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-10-
LPA-2351-2017
on the part of the negligent party since it was in exclusive control of the
situation. This principle has been well-entrenched in the Indian
jurisprudence by the landmark judgement in Municipal Corporation of
Delhi vs. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the fall of the Clock Tower, which was
exclusively owned and controlled by the Municipal Corporation, by itself
raised an inference of negligence against the Corporation. The Apex
Court made the following observation:
“…It is true that the normal rule is that it is for the
plaintiff to prove negligence and not for the defendant
to disprove it. But there is an exception to this rule
which applies where the circumstances surrounding
the thing which causes the damage are at the material
time exclusively under the control or management of
the defendant or his servant and the happening is such
as does not occur in the ordinary course of things
without negligence on the defendant’s part. The
principle has been clearly stated in Halsbury’s Laws of
England, 2nd Edn., Vol. 23, at p. 671 as follows:
“An exception to the general rule that the
burden of proof of the alleged negligence is
in the first instance on the plaintiff occurs
wherever the facts already established are
such that the proper and natural inference
immediately arising from them is that the
injury complained of was caused by the
defendant’s negligence, or where the event
charged as negligence tells its own story of
negligence on the part of the defendant, the
story so told being clear and unambiguous.
To these cases the maxim res ipsa loquitur
applies. Where the doctrine applies, a
presumption of fault is raised against the
defendant, which, if he is to succeed in his
defence, must be overcome by contrary
evidence, the burden on the defendant being
10 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-11-
LPA-2351-2017
to show how the act complained of could
reasonably happen without negligence on his
part.”
Thus, the University authorities cannot escape their liability to
compensate the appellant for the injuries suffered by her, on the
University campus, on account of collapsing of the bathroom wall, which
building is indisputably owned by the respondent-University.
17. Concededly, the respondent University is a creature of a
statute passed by the State Legislature, namely Desh Bhagat University
Act, 2012 (Punjab Act No. 15 of 2013) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act
of 2013″). The University has been established by virtue of section 3(1)
of the Act of 2013. Section 3(2) of the Act ibid, provides for the
University to be run and managed by the Foundations in accordance with
the provisions of the said statute. ‘Foundations’ has been defined under
Section 2(j), which is reproduced hereunder:
“2(j) ‘Foundations’ means the Aasra Foundations
registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860 (XXI of 1860);”
The objects of the University categorically list ‘dissemination of
knowledge’ and promoting ‘academic aspirants of the rural students’ as
some of its noble aims under section 4 of the Act of 2013. Discharge of a
public function, i.e. education, is a clear ground to bring any authority
within the ambit of the definition of ‘State’, under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, thereby making it amenable to writ jurisdiction
under Article 226. This proposition is expounded by the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University and others,
11 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-12-
LPA-2351-2017
reported in (2015) 16 SCC 530, wherein, after considering a catena of
precedents, a writ petition against a deemed university was held to be
maintainable for reasons enumerated in the following paragraph of the
judgment:
“30. This we say for the reasons that firstly,
Respondent 1 is engaged in imparting education in
higher studies to students at large. Secondly, it is
discharging “public function” by way of imparting
education. Thirdly, it is notified as a “Deemed
University” by the Central Government under Section
3 of the UGC Act. Fourthly, being a “Deemed
University”, all the provisions of the UGC Act are
made applicable to Respondent 1, which inter alia
provides for effective discharge of the public function,
namely, education for the benefit of the public. Fifthly,
once Respondent 1 is declared as “Deemed
University” whose all functions and activities are
governed by the UGC Act, alike other universities then
it is an “authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution. Lastly, once it is held to be an
“authority” as provided in Article 12 then as a
necessary consequence, it becomes amenable to writ
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution.”
It is undisputed that the respondent-University is not only a creature of
statute but is performing a significant public function, i.e. imparting
education. The powers and functions of the University are provided under
Section 5 of the Act of 2013, which empowers it to inter alia “receive
grants from the University Grants Commission and other Central, State
agencies” [clause (xvi)] and to deal with “immoveable or moveable
property” [clause (xxiii)]. Hence, the maintenance of the campus and
12 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-13-
LPA-2351-2017
buildings is a duty of the University authorities, which is inextricably
linked and is essential to the effective discharge of its primary function of
education, which is a public function. Thus, the writ Court is empowered,
by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution, to issue any order against
respondent University, which it can issue against the government or a
municipal body for damage caused by their negligence in discharge of
public functions, including a direction to pay compensation, as has been
done in numerous cases noticed hereinbefore.
18. It is trite that every student possesses a right to obtain
education in a safe environment, free from physical hazards, and the same
is a crucial aspect of Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution. The
corresponding duty to fulfil this right lies on the authorities charged with
the function of running the institution. To further dispel any doubts
regarding the duty of the educational institutions to maintain safe
campuses, reference can be made to the slew of directions issued by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court to all schools, including private schools, in
Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India and others, reported in (2009) 6
SCC 398, wherein the Apex Court interpreted Articles 21 and 21A, so as
to include the right to a ‘safe’ education and directed that all schools must
follow fire safety norms, and their buildings must adhere to the National
Building Code of India. The following observations succinctly summarise
the essence of the judgment:
“35. The Constitution likewise provides meaning to
the word “education” beyond its dictionary meaning.
Parents should not be compelled to send their children13 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-14-
LPA-2351-2017to dangerous schools, nor should children suffer
compulsory education in unsound buildings.
…
46. It is the fundamental right of each and every child
to receive education free from fear of security and
safety. The children cannot be compelled to receive
education from an unsound and unsafe building.”
In the light of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds no reason why a
similar right to a safe educational campus must not vest in a student going
to a university, such as the appellant in the instant case. Therefore, where
there is such a right vested in the appellant under Article 21 and a
corresponding duty is cast upon the respondent-University to ensure
structural integrity of its buildings, there is no reason why an appropriate
remedy, in the form of compensation, should not be allowed by this Court
when negligence in performing the said duty by an authority performing a
public function has deprived a young student of unfathomable
opportunities in her lifetime.
19. It may also be noticed that in the present appeal, the
coordinate Bench passed the following order, on 03.10.2024:
“From the perusal of the record, it would be
clear that the appellant was studying with the
respondent No.5-University and has become
handicapped to the extent of 100%, due to the
bathroom wall falling on her, which is apparently due
to poor construction. The Medico Legal Report
(Annexure P-4) and the Disability Certificate issued by
the Civil Surgeon, Sangrur dated 30.04.2016
(Annexure P-5) goes on to show that the disablement
is 100% of the 26 years old female. The respondent-
University has escaped criminal prosecution, which14 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-15-
LPA-2351-2017was lodged against it by way of an FIR, by getting a
discharge order from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Amloh dated 18.04.2017, in which a teacher Shri
Vishal Sharma had been arrayed as an accused, instead
of higher officials of the respondent-University.
The vicarious liability of the respondent-
University and the higher officials is apparent on the
face of the record and prima facie we are of the
considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has
failed to exercise its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by
not granting interim compensation atleast to the
appellant.
Faced with this situation, Mr. Aman Bansal,
appearing for the respondent-University prays for time
to seek instructions as to whether the appellant can be
compensated in any manner or not.
In the meantime, the Member Secretary,
Punjab Legal Services Authority, Mohali shall direct
the District Legal Services Authority, Sangrur also to
interact with the appellant and get her medically
examined and get a fresh disability certificate and if
possible, there is any scheme to grant compensation,
the matter be also examined.
Resultantly, we direct impleadment of Punjab
Legal Services Authority, Mohali through its Member
Secretary as respondent No.7. Office to make
necessary correction in the memo of parties.
Adjourned to 11.12.2024.”
In response to the above directions, the University authorities (respondent
Nos.5 and 6) have filed a joint affidavit, wherein the offer made to the
writ petitioner has been reiterated and the same is extracted hereunder:
“2. That it is further submitted that though the
entire expenses incurred on the treatment of the15 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-16-
LPA-2351-2017Appellant had been borne by the Respondent No. 5
which is a private university, despite that the Appellant
has filed the writ petition on 25.08.2017 i.e. four years
after the incident. That though the petition itself is
non-maintainable, however, without prejudice to the
rights of the respondent university, the respondent no.
5 had filed one affidavit dated 19.02.2025 before this
Hon’ble Court and submitted that the University is
willing to pay an amount of Rs 5,00,000/- to the
Appellant as full and final amount towards her claim
which is otherwise non-maintainable and furthermore,
one suitable employment to the appellant or any
eligible member of her immediate family member was
also offered, subject to the fulfilment of the requisite
qualifications and conditions for the said post.”
“4. That the respondent no. 5 and 6 vide affidavit
dated 19.02.2025 has submitted that without prejudice
to the rights of the University, it is willing to pay an
amount of Rs 5,00,000/- to the Appellant as full and
final amount towards her claim which is otherwise
non-maintainable and furthermore, one suitable
employment to the appellant or any eligible member of
her immediate family member was also offered,
subject to the fulfilment of the requisite qualifications
and conditions for the said post. However, it is most
respectfully submitted that the respondent is not liable
for the falling of the wall, as alleged. … … .”
20. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant
was a student of science stream and has suffered paraplegia due to the
unfortunate accident. It is further contended that the offer made by the
University is farcical on the face of it and is far from being just
compensation, for the misery being suffered by the appellant. It is still
16 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-17-
LPA-2351-2017
further argued that in such like cases of permanent disablement arising
from accidents, the principles of computing monetary compensation ought
to be one that are adopted in motor accident claims. It is, therefore, urged
on behalf of the appellant that determination of compensation for
permanent disability has to take into account both pecuniary losses and
non-pecuniary losses. The appellant has suffered severe limitations
inflicted due to injuries in the unfortunate accident and as such, the
appellant is deprived of leading a dignified life, which is enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, so as to be granted compensation,
payment of which is ordered accordingly.
21. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the next question that
would arise for consideration is as to what would be just and proper
compensation in the present case.
22. Undisputedly, the appellant was critically injured in the
unfortunate accident and has been rendered 100% permanently physically
disabled in relation to her whole body as has been borne out from the
disability certificate dated 13.04.2016 (Annexure P-5). The said disability
certificate has not been challenged. However, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted that thereafter, another disability
certificate had been issued and keeping in view the directions issued vide
order dated 03.10.2024 by the coordinate Bench, the appellant was again
medically examined by a Board of doctors which assessed permanent
disability at 90%. The said Medical Board was of the opinion that the
handicap percentage is accurate as of 22.11.2024 and the MLR shows
17 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-18-
LPA-2351-2017
about 60% compression fracture of L1 Vertebral Body. The findings of
the supra Medical Board, are reproduced hereunder:
“Board Constituted by SMO I/C Civil Hospital
Sangrur vide No.Medical Board/2024/10966-968 Date
21.11.2024 Board of the unanimous opinion that
patient has paraplegia passing urine percatheter.
Permanent disability assessed at 90%. So, certificate
No.PB2410619900020523 is accurate for Handicap
Percentage as of date MRI shows about 60%
compression Fracture of L1 Vertebral Body.
Sd./- 22/11/2024
Dr. Karamdeep Singh Kahal Dr. Manshu Singla
M.O. Ortho M.O. ENT
C.H. Sangrur C.H. Sangrur
Dr. Navdeep Arora
M.O. Skin
C.H. Sangrur"
Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries and permanent
disability suffered and the fact that the appellant is incapable of
independently taking care of herself or even attending to her daily needs,
the functional disability would remain at 100% for the whole body.
23. There is no dispute of the factum that the appellant was a
final year student of three years B.Sc. course in the respondent University.
As such, she was a meritorious student having been admitted in the
Science stream. The appellant was only 23 years old on the date of the
incident, with a bright future and a whole life to look forward to. Being a
student of science, there were many opportunities available to her to
pursue after graduating from the University. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the decision in Civil Appeal Nos.8131-32 of 2014 decided on
25.09.2014 titled as Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi vs. Ramkaran
18 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-19-
LPA-2351-2017
Ramchandra Sharma and another, awarded Rs.25,000/- per month as
income for a 19 years old deceased medical student. In S. Mohammed
Hakkim vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in
(2025) 10 SCC 263, a decision in Civil Appeal No.9897 of 2025 dated
29.07.2025, their Lordships while determining the quantum of
compensation to a 20 years old appellant-claimant, studying in 3rd year of
engineering college, who had lost his left leg due to accident, and was
suffering from 100% functional disability, held the claimant’s monthly
notional income to be Rs.20,000/- with addition of 40% made towards
future prospects. Rs.5 lakh was awarded under the head of ‘loss of marital
prospects’, while maintaining the compensation awarded under other
heads. In another decision rendered in Civil Appeal No.3125 of 2023
decided on 24.04.2023, titled as Kandasami and others vs. Lindabriyal
and another, reported in 2023 ACJ 1653, wherein the deceased had
completed B.Tech. course, had also done a course in Computer
Applications, and was aged about 28 years when the accident had
occurred, the notional income of the deceased was reckoned as
Rs.25,000/- per month and 40% was awarded as future prospects.
23.1 It is notable that no deduction towards personal expenses is to
be made on the amount of compensation, the present case being not of
death and the claim not being made by the dependents, but by a survivor
in the accident with severe injuries resulting into permanent disability, as
laid down in Rahul Ganpatrao Sable vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (dead)
through legal representatives and others, reported in (2023) 13 SCC 334.
In the said case, the claimant was 19 years old, suffering 60-85%
19 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-20-
LPA-2351-2017
permanent disability. Considering the disability suffered, loss of income
was held to be 100% and the claimant’s monthly income was taken to be
Rs.25,000/- per month. It was further held that deduction towards personal
expenses was unjustified since the claim was by a survivor and further
having regard to nature of injuries and permanent disability suffered by
the claimant, requiring 24 hours assistance, the claimant was held entitled
to Rs.10,80,000/- under the head of attendant expenses. Moreover,
compensation amounting to Rs.9,72,000/- was also awarded for ‘future
medical expenses’ by applying multiplier of 18, besides additional sum of
Rs.3 lakh each under the heads for ‘loss of marriage prospects’ and for
‘pain and suffering’.
24. In the light of the aforesaid settled principles of law, for
determining notional income of a student who has suffered 100%
functional disability, we are of the considered view that the income of the
appellant is required to be reckoned as Rs.22,500/- per month. Besides the
above, future prospects @ 40% are to be awarded keeping in view the
dicta in Sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Company Ltd. and another, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 and National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680.
24.1 The general principles relating to compensation in injury
cases and assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent
disability, expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs.
Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, was applied and
followed in Sidram‘s case (supra). It was further held that it is not
20 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-21-
LPA-2351-2017
necessary to adduce any documentary evidence to prove notional income
of victim and Court can award same even in absence of any documentary
evidence. The principle of awarding notional income was approved,
where the same is just in facts and circumstances of the case. The relevant
portion of the judgment in Sidram (supra) reads thus:
“59. Thus, we are of the view, more
particularly keeping in mind the dictum of this Court
in Kirti [Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 2
SCC 166] that it is not necessary to adduce any
documentary evidence to prove the notional income of
the victim and the Court can award the same even in
the absence of any documentary evidence.
In Kirti [Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 2
SCC 166] it was stated that the Court should ensure
while choosing the method and fixing the notional
income that the same is just in the facts and
circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing
the compensation too conservatively, nor too
liberally.”
25. Concededly, the date of birth of the appellant is 10.01.1990
and as such, she was about 23 years of age as on 11.10.2013, i.e. when the
unfortunate incident occurred. In view of the ratio in Sarla Verma vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121,
multiplier of 18 is to be applied. The principles for determination of just
compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were
reiterated in Civil Appeal No.735 of 2020 decided on 05.02.2020 titled as
Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others¸ reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413. In
the said case, it was further held that the multiplier system is to be
followed not only for determining the compensation on account of loss of
21 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-22-
LPA-2351-2017
income but also for determining the attendant charges, etc. The relevant
portion of the said decision reads thus:
“5. The principles with regard to determination
of just compensation contemplated under the Act are
well settled. The injuries cause deprivation to the body
which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The
damages may vary according to the gravity of the
injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On
account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer
consequential losses such as:
(i) loss of earning;
(ii) expenses on treatment which may include
medical expenses, transportation, special diet,
attendant charges, etc.,
(iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life
by loss of a particular part of the body, and
(iv) loss of future earning capacity.
Damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary,
but all have to be assessed in rupees and paise.
6. It is impossible to equate human suffering
and personal deprivation with money. However, this is
what the Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court
has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so
as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by
the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should
not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other
hand, the compensation should also not be assessed in
so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the
claimant. The court while assessing the compensation
should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the
loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is
what is termed as just compensation. The
compensation or damages assessed for personal
injuries should be substantial to compensate the
injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured
22 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-23-
LPA-2351-2017
throughout his/her life. They should not be just token
damages.
… …
Attendant charges
22. The attendant charges have been awarded
by the High Court @ Rs 2500 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 factors
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 recognised by
this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K.
Veluswami [AIR 1962 SC 1]. 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 recognised as the most
realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better
justice between the parties and thus results in award of
“just compensation” within the meaning of the Act.”
26. In State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Naval Kumar
alias Rohit Kumar, Civil Appeal No.1339 of 2017 decided on
02.02.2017, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 115, the Apex Court was
considering just and reasonable compensation to the victim, a boy of 08
years who came in contact with high tension live wire and suffered
injuries. Both arms of the said victim had to be amputated making him
23 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-24-
LPA-2351-2017
100% disabled permanently. In the said case, compensation was
determined at Rs. 90 Lakh along with 6% interest to take care of the
victim’s upbringing and other needs for the rest of his life.
27. The decision in Civil Appeal No.14290 of 2024 decided on
11.12.2024, titled as Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manjoor Ahmad Simon and
another, reported in 2024(3) PLR 707, followed the ratio in Kajal‘s case
(supra). It was further held therein that the claimant who was aged about
07 years when she suffered grievous injuries on account of the road
accident, suffered disability to the extent of 75%, however, on a complete
overview of the situation, like in the present case, for all practical
purposes, the disability was treated to be 100%. The compensation of Rs.1
lakh awarded under the head of ‘pain and suffering’ was enhanced to Rs.15
lakh taking into consideration that the claimant will remain dependent on
another person for the rest of her life and will also miss out on taking part
in activities which she would have normally done, if she had not met with
this unfortunate accident.
28. Keeping in view the principle of law laid down in Kajal’s
case and Baby Sakshi Greola‘s case (supra), it would be just and fair to
award attendant charges, for two attendants and apply the multiplier
system thereto, as well. The appellant would also be entitled for future
medical expenses of Rs.5 lakh, being taken on the conservative side,
keeping in view the nature of injuries and the permanent disability
suffered. It is also to be borne in mind that with advancement in medical
science, newer treatments and therapies shall become available in future,
which of course would come at a premium and any patient suffering, like
24 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-25-
LPA-2351-2017
the appellant, would aspire to take the same. At least, the financial
security to be able to afford such treatment in future, is likely to serve as
some solace to the appellant.
29. Considering the amount ought to be awarded under the head
‘pain and suffering’, it would be gainful to refer to the law laid down in
Civil Appeal No.12993 of 2024 decided on 22.11.2024, titled as K.S.
Muralidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi and another, reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 3385. Their Lordships of the Apex Court on acknowledging
that ‘pain and suffering’ as a concept escapes definition, referred to certain
authorities, scholarly as also judicial, wherein attempts have been made to
set down the contours thereof. Some decisions in respect of pain and
suffering in cases where disability suffered is at 100% were also noticed.
After profound deliberation, an amount of Rs.15 lakh was awarded under
the head ‘pain and suffering’, with the following observation:
“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.”
30. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant is a young
woman who would naturally have dreams of settling in matrimony and
25 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-26-
LPA-2351-2017
having children of her own, which dreams stand adversely impacted by
the unfortunate incident. It is well recognized that marriage/
companionship is an integral part of the natural life of a human being.
Keeping in view the nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant and
her 100% functional disability, it is near impossible for her to rear
children and enjoy the simple pleasures of marital life. Keeping in view
the impact of the non-pecuniary loss suffered by the appellant, we are of
the considered view that the appellant is to be also granted compensation
of Rs.5 lakh under the head of ‘loss of marriage prospects’, following the
ratio in Baby Sakshi Greola‘s case (supra).
31. The appellant, having been confined and restricted in her
movement on account of the permanent disability suffered by her, would
be required to spend extra money for transportation. Not only that, the
appellant would also require special diet, keeping in view the nature of her
injuries, which has limited her movement to negligible. Accordingly, an
amount of Rs.1 lakh deserves to be awarded under the said head as well.
32. In summa, in our considered opinion, the just and proper
compensation required to be awarded to the appellant, is tabulated
hereunder:
Sr. Heads Compensation Judgments relied upon
No.
1. Notional Income Monthly-Rs.22,500/- S. Mohammed Hakkim vs.
National Insurance
Annually- Company Ltd. and others
Rs.22,500 x 12 = (2025) 10 SCC 263
Rs.2,70,000/-
Kandasami and others vs.
Lindabriyal and another
2023 ACJ 1653
Rahul Ganpatrao Sable vs.
Laxman Maruti Jadhav
26 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-27-
LPA-2351-2017
Sr. Heads Compensation Judgments relied upon
No.
(2023) 13 SCC 334
2. Future Prospects Rs.2,70,000 + Sidram vs. United India
@ 40% 1,08,000 = Insurance Company Ltd.
Rs.3,78,000/- (2023) 3 SCC 439
3. Income after Rs.3,78,000 x 18 = Sarla Verma vs. DTC
applying multiplier Rs.68,04,000/- (2009) 6 SCC 121
of 18 (age 23 years)
(DOB: 10.01.1990)
4. Attendant charges Rs.10,000 x 12 x 18 x Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand
for 02 attendants 2 = Rs.43,20,000/- (2020) 4 SCC 413
Baby Sakshi Greola vs.
Manjoor Ahmad Simon and
another
2024 3 PLR 707
5. Future medical Rs.5,00,000/- Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand
expenses (supra)
Baby Sakshi Greola vs.
Manjoor Ahmad Simon and
another (supra)
6. Pain and suffering Rs.15,00,000/- K.S. Muralidhar vs. R.
Subbulakshmi and another
2024 SCC Online SC
3385
7. Loss of amenities of Rs.5,00,000/- Baby Sakshi Greola vs.
life and marriage Manjoor Ahmad Simon and
another (supra)
8. Transportation and Rs.1,00,000/-
special diet
9. Total Compensation Rs.1,37,24,000/-
33. The liability to pay the above awarded compensation shall be
upon respondent Nos. 5 and 6, jointly and severally. The said amount
shall attract interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the writ
petition till the realization of the entire amount. We are also conscious of
the fact that the petitioner-appellant has prayed for grant of Rs.1 Crore as
compensation but as per settled law, the principles applicable to motor
accidents claims have been applied, whereby a duty is cast upon the
Courts and Tribunals to grant just and reasonable compensation to the
27 of 28
::: Downloaded on – 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::
-28-
LPA-2351-2017
claimant. Hence, the total compensation awarded shall be paid to the
appellant/writ petitioner within a period of three months from today.
34. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed in the terms
aforesaid.
35. Pending application(s), if any, also stand closed.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) (VIKAS SURI)
JUDGE JUDGE
13.02.2026
sumit.k
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
28 of 28
::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2026 12:40:21 :::