SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(P&H) 3390

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
Prince - Appellant
Versus 
Amritpal Singh And Ors. - Respondents
FAO-6710-2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 09-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Harman Preet Singh, Advocate, Mr. Jitender Singh Dadwal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Shaurya Khanna, Advocate Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate

A minor child suffering permanent disability in a motor accident must not be treated as a non-earning individual; compensation for loss of income should be calculated using minimum wages for skilled workmen, and non-pecuniary heads like loss of marriage prospects must be included to ensure just compensation.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Motor accident - Permanent disability - Quantum of compensation - Minor victim - Multiplier - Notional income - Non-pecuniary damages - Loss of marriage prospects - Principles for assessment of just compensation. (Paras 6-8, 10, 13, 16)

(B) Multiplier - Determination of - For a minor aged 12 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 18, as per established judicial precedents. (Para 9)

(C) Notional Income - Assessment of - A minor child who suffers permanent disability cannot be equated with a non-earning individual; computation of loss of income must be based on the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled workman. (Para 10)

(D) Non-pecuniary Damages - Pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects - Permanent disability in a minor necessitates compensation for intangible losses, including the inability to lead a normal life and future matrimonial prospects, which are distinct from pecuniary damages. (Paras 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a minor at the time of the accident, sustained grievous injuries resulting in 50% permanent disability. The tribunal awarded compensation, which the appellant challenged, seeking enhancement on the grounds that the tribunal failed to apply the correct multiplier, incorrectly assessed the notional income, and omitted essential heads of compensation such as loss of marriage prospects and adequate pain and suffering.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the tribunal committed a manifest error in applying a multiplier of 17 instead of 18 and failing to account for the minor's potential future earnings based on skilled labor wages. Furthermore, the court held that the tribunal failed to award compensation for loss of marriage prospects and provided inadequate amounts for pain and suffering, necessitating an upward revision of the total compensation.

Issues: The main issues were the correct multiplier applicable to a minor, the methodology for assessing the notional income of a non-earning minor, and the entitlement to non-pecuniary damages for loss of marriage prospects and pain and suffering.

Ratio Decidendi: Compensation must be just, fair, and reasonable, aiming to restore the claimant to their pre-accident position. For minors, the assessment of loss of income must reflect potential future earnings by adopting minimum wages for skilled workmen, and non-pecuniary heads must be included to address the lifelong impact of permanent disability on the victim's quality of life and social prospects.

Result: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced.

Table of Content
1. nature of appeal regarding compensation enhancement in a motor vehicle accident claim. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties argument summary seeking enhancement versus dismissal of the appeal. (Para 3 , 4)
3. legal standards for assessing permanent disability, future prospects, and general damages. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. correction of multiplier and determination of minor's income using minimum wages. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. quantification of compensation for pain and suffering based on injury severity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
6. awarding compensation for loss of marriage prospects due to permanent disability. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
7. final calculation of enhanced compensation, interest rates, and disbursement directives. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 21.02.2019 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘1988 Act’), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (in short ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.9,80,290/- along with 7.5 % interest on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant – Prince in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 07.06.2010.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted to the appellant/claimant.Therefore, they pray 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 the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India)Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467).

6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :

Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treat








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top