Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 69
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Alka Sarin, J.
Sandeep Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Amrik Singh & Ors. – Respondents
F.A.O. No. 7776 of 2014
Decided On : 18-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma Adv., Mr. K.K. Saini Adv., Mr. Brijeshwar Vashist Adv., Ms. Madhu Sharma Adv.
The court established that the burden lies on the insurer to prove non-liability under the insurance policy, particularly regarding route permits, while ensuring just compensation reflects significant injuries and future prospects.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 149(2) - Compensation for injuries sustained in an accident - The Tribunal originally awarded Rs.2,35,273/-; upon appeal, the amount was revised to Rs.26,47,297/- including future prospects and additional heads of compensation - Courts should not award less than just and proper compensation, especially when disability exceeds 85%. (Paras 11-21)
(B) Recovery Rights - The Insurance Company must prove non-liability under the policy, particularly defenses concerning lack of a valid route permit as per Section 149(2) of the Act - Burden of proof lies on the insurer to establish any breaches relevant to liability. (Paras 14-20)
Facts of the case:
The claimant, aged 32, suffered an 85% disability due to a vehicular accident that resulted in amputation of his leg while engaged in sales of fruits and vegetables. The claimant originally sought higher compensation than awarded by the Tribunal for medical costs and disability.
Findings of Court:
The award is recalibrated significantly higher, accounting for the claimant's age, loss of income due to disability, attendant costs, and prosthetic limb requirements, with total compensation now set at Rs.26,47,297/-.
Issues: The primary issues addressed were the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the Insurance Company’s liability concerning the lack of a valid route permit.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court endorsed the multiplier method for calculating future earnings related to the claimant's functional disability and affirmed the necessity of proving policy defenses by the Insurance Company.
Result: Appeals allowed; the original Tribunal award was modified.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tribunal's compensation details provided. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding compensation assessed. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on disability and compensation assessments. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. final compensation awarded and appeals decided. (Para 11 , 21) |
| 5. legal argument regarding insurance liability established. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. the burden of proof for defenses against liability rests on the insurer under the motor vehicles act. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Alka Sarin, J.
This common order shall dispose of both the above-captioned appeals being FAO-7776-2014 filed by the claimant-injured aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and FAO-3664-2015 filed by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the recovery rights granted to the Insurance Company vide the impugned award dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’).
2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. The parties are being referred to as the claimant, Insurance Company and owner of the offending vehicle for the sake of clarity.
FAO-7776-2014
3. In the present case the Tribunal had awarded the following compensation:
| Sr. No. | Heads | Compensation Awarded |
| 1 | Compensation on account of Medical Treatment | Rs.25,273/- |
| 2 | Compensation on account of disability | Rs.1,70,000/- |
| 3 | Pain and mental agony | Rs.20,000/- |
| 4 | Transportation charges | Rs.10,000/- |
| 5 | Compensation on account of extra nourishment | Rs.10,000/- |
|
| Total Compensation | Rs.2,35,273/- |
|
| Interest | 7.5% per annum |
4. Learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the claimant was 32 years of age at the time of the accident, which took place on 06.03.2011. In the said accident the claimant-appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries as a result of which his right leg was amputated. He was admitted in Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh from where he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and then to PGIMER, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the claimant would further contend that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side inasmuch as the Tribunal has not assessed the income of claimant. The claimant was doing the work of sale of vegetables and fruits and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Further, the amount awarded on account of disability and under the heads of pain and suffering, attendant charges, special diet and transportation is also on the lower side. Further, no amount has been awarded towards attendant charges, loss of amenities of life and for the prosthetic limb. Learned counsel for the claimant has relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors., [2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 404] and that of the Delhi High Court in case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rohit Kumar & Ors. [2017 (7) AD (Delhi) 602].
5. Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company and owner of the offending vehicle has contended that sufficient amount of compensation has already been awarded and there was no scope of any further enhancement.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. In the present case the claimant was admittedly 32 years of age and as a result of the accident his right leg was crushed under the tyre of the offending vehicle. In order to prove the disability of the claimant, Dr. Nitin Garg, Medical Officer, Ortho Specialist, Civil Hospital Khanna was examined as CW3 who proved on record the disability certificate of the claimant as Ex.C3 ad further testified that the claimant suffered disability to the extent of 85%. He further testified that he had operated upon the claimant as regards his injuries vide Ex.C2 and his amputation th
