IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 12.12.2025

Date of decision: 23.12.2025

Uploaded on: 24.12.2025

RAJAT SHARMA ......Appellant

Vs.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD ORS. ......Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate

Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate

for respondent No.1-Insurance Company.

None for respondent No.2 (despite service).

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

CM-7153-CII-2025

1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

1963 for condonation of delay of 388 days in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant would not

ask for interest for the delayed period. 3. Notice in the application.

4. On asking of the Court, Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and contends that he has no objection if the application

is allowed.

5. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed.

6. The delay of 388 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO-4471-2025

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 30.04.2024 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, Yamuna Nagar (in short ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.5,51,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant – Rajat Sharma in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on

14.02.2019.

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 respondent No.1-Insurance Company, 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, 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 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 o