IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Reserve: 21/11/2025

Date of Pronouncement:-18.12.2025

Date of Uploading:-19.12.2025

Raju Singh ......Appellant

Vs.

Janak Raj & ors. ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate (Through VC)

for the appellant.

Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate for

Mr. Saurabh Chawla, Advocate

for respondent No. 1.

Mr. R.S. Khushwaha, Advocate

for respondent No. 2.

Mr. Nitin Kataria, Advocate

for respondent No. 3.

Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,

for respondent No. 4-Oriental Insurance Co.

Mr. Nigam K. Bhardwaj, Advocate

for respondent No. 5-General Insurance Co.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 13.09.2021 passed in the claim petition bearing CNR No. HRPK01-003348-2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (Haryana) (for short, 'the Tribunal’) for

enhancement of compensation granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.3,96,000/-, on account of injuries suffered by him in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 11.07.2017.

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 for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. He, therefore prays that the present appeal be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 -Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the compensation is on the higher side and deserves to be reduced. He further contends that Insurance Company has filed appeal bearing FAO No. 33-2022 challenging the compensation on the ground that the same is on the higher side. He, therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

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 treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :

(a) Los