IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 04.12.2025

Date of decision: 18.12.2025

Uploaded on: 19.12.2025

AJIT KUMAR ......Appellant

Vs.

CHAMKAUR SINGH AND ORS. ......Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Kartik Gupta, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate

for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 05.09.2025 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, Hoshiarpur (in short ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.17,77,155/- along with interest @ 6% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant – Ajit

Kumar in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 21.10.2021.

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.

4. He also contends that in a similar accident, where the disability was

70%, greater amount of compensation was granted than the claimant.

5. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be enhanced, as per latest law.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-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. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant on the higher side as he was serving in prison and was on parole at the time of accident.

7. He further points out that the respondent-Insurance Company has already filed a separate appeal, being FAO-5455-2024, titled as “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajit Kumar and others”, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal and seeks its reduction. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

9. 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