IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on : 24.12.2025

Pronounced on: 08.01.2026

Uploaded on 12.01.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced

or the full judgment is pronounced: Operative part/full judgment

Jaspreet Singh

..Appellant

Versus

Munish Kumar and others

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Paramveer Singh, Advocate for the appellant

Mr. V.Ramswaroop, Advocate for respondent No.5-

Insurance Company

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. This is claimant/injured’s appeal against the award dated 25.10.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) with a prayer to modify the amount of compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.70,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him, in a vehicular accident, which took place on 12.09.1997. There is no dispute with regard to the correctness of the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding injuries sustained by the claimant/injured in the aforesaid vehicular accident. Hence, the only issue is with regard to quantum of

compensation.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the facts, as recorded by the Tribunal, in the impugned award, are not being reproduced herein.

3. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is tabulated as under:-

Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded

1. Medical treatment expenses 10,000/- 2. Amount for purchase of medicines 10,000/- 3. Amount for permanent disability to 50,000/-

extent of 25% and for loss of future enjoyment of his limbs Total 70,000/-

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that there is no dispute regarding assessment of permanent disability by the Tribunal as 25%, however, the Tribunal has awarded a highly meagre amount of compensation without assessing any income of the claimant and granting escalation on account of future prospects and has not even applied any multiplier. Furthermore, the Tribunal has not awarded appropriate compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of amenities of life etc. He further contended that no amount has been awarded towards special diet, transportation charges etc. He places reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5- Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount towards compensation has already been awarded by the Tribunal and there is no scope for enhancement.

6. Since there is no dispute with regard to permanent disability as assessed by the Tribunal, the same is maintained.

7. Now, let us proceed to assess the income of claimant/injured. He was pursuing his Bachelor degree when he met with an accident. He was a 2^nd year Bachelor student and was aged 21 years. Therefore, he could be equated to that of a skilled worker and also by applying some guess work, this Court assesses monthly income of the claimant/injured as Rs.2,000/-.

8. Furthermore, in view of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the claimant/injured will be entitled to future prospects. He was 21 years old at the time of accident. Therefore, he is held entitled to future prospects at rate of 40% (40% of 2000 = 800/-, monthly income =2000+800 = 2800/-) and in view of Sarla Verma’s case (supra) multiplier of 18 will be applied. Amount of Rs. 30,000/- is awarded under Head ‘Pain & Suffering’, an amount of Rs.10,000/- each is awarded under Head ‘ Special Diet’ and ‘Transportation’. He is also held entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of marriage prospects and enjoyment of amenities of life. Amount of Rs.10,000/- each awarded by the Tribunal towards medical treatment and purchase of medicines etc. is maintained.

9. Accordingly, the compensation is re-assessed as under :

Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded

1. Monthly income 2000/-

10. The claimant/injured shal