IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.11.2025 Bhanma# ...Appellant Versus Vaibhav Pratap Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Mohit, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

It is claimant’s appeal seeking enhancement.

2. In a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of car No.HR-12-T-0828 on 05.01.2021, the pe##oner Bhanma# i.e. appellant (68 years) herein sustained injuries. She filed a claim pe##on under Sec#on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensa#on against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Learned Tribunal vide an award dated 03.02.2025 awarded the compensa#on of ₹3,26,233/- along with interest of 6% per annum, which is alleged by the appellant to be inadequate.

3. Seeking enhancement, it is argued that no amount was awarded towards aAendant charges, and compensa#on under the head of disability is inadequate.

4. In injury claims, the court must translate medical (physical) disability into func#onal disability vis-à-vis earning capacity; and the assessment depends on the part of the body affected, voca#on, and impact on work, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343. Age-linked mul#pliers as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009)

6 SCC 121, guide calcula#on of future loss of income. “Just compensa#on” avoids duplica#on across heads like pain & suffering, special diet, transporta#on, aAendant, loss of ameni#es, future earning loss and medicals. Courts interfere in an appeal only when the award is palpably low/excessive or contrary to law.

5. In present case, the appellant suffered 16% permanent disability (Ex.P-2) affec#ng the shoulder and right ankle i.e., areas that hinder mobility and daily func#oning. By following the principles laid down in Raj Kumar vs Ajay (supra), the Tribunal enhanced medical disability to 30% func#onal disability, reasoning that the impairment would hamper movements for the rest of her life.

6. It is no#ced that Income of the appellant as ₹1,84,080/- p.a. is undisputed. Mul#plier of 5 for an age of 68 correctly aligned with Sarla Verma. Therefore, computa#on i.e. 30% of ₹1,84,080 × 5 = ₹2,76,120/- towards loss of future earnings, is found to be correct and needs no appellate correc#on.

7. Further, the Tribunal granted ₹25,000/- (pain & suffering), ₹10,000/- (transporta#on), ₹10,000/- (special diet), besides other pecuniary components culmina#ng in ₹3,26,233/- in total.

8. Awards generally rest on evidence of hospitaliza#on dura#on, nature of dependency, or proof of paid assistance. The paper-book discloses no concrete proof of prolonged pa#ent care, paid caregiver, or any such receipt. At the appellate stage, in the absence of demonstrable evidence, a token addi#on is not obligatory, at risks of repe##on, when pain & suffering and other facilita#ve heads have already been granted.

9. As the Tribunal has applied the correct legal framework, used a proper mul#plier, and made a reasoned func#onal disability assessment, interference is unwarranted unless the figure shocks the conscience or ignores material evidence. Nothing to this effect could be pointed out.

10. No merits. Appeal is dismissed.

12.11.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)

JUDGE Yogesh Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No