IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 21.01.2026 Pronounced on: 27.01.2026 Uploaded on: 28.01.2026 Joginder Pal Handa …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Pradeep Virk, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kamal Deep, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Mr. Ved Parkash, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the Respondent No.1 Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate for the Respondent No.2(Through V.C.).

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-injured seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 21.02.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, whereby the compensation of ₹50,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum was granted on account of injury in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 07.09.1991. Dissatisfied with the said assessment and the quantum of compensation, the claimant has approached this Court.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. On 07.09.1991, the appellant was driving his scooter bearing no. PAU- 5612 and met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Jeep bearing no. HNE-995) driven by the Respondent no.2. As a result of the accident, he suffered fracture of both bones of the right leg and other parts of the body and thereafter remained under treatment for a considerable period. A disability certificate on record shows that he has suffered 50% permanent physical disability of the right lower limb. It is the case of the appellant that he was a qualified Engineer by profession and remained under employment in Indian Navy and also in Merchant Navy Shipping Corporation of India and other firms. That prior to the accident, he had got appointment from M/S. Ocean Clan Maritime Private Limited Singapore. The contract was to commence shortly and he was to join shortly after the date of accident. He was to draw a salary of USD 1500 per month. However, because of the injuries and permanent disability suffered in the accident, he could not join the said employment and permanently lost his career prospects in the Merchant Navy. Hence, he had filed the Claim Petition for compensation amounting to ₹35,00,000/-.

3. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal concluded that the accident in question and the resultant injuries of appellant were duly proved and occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, driver of Jeep bearing no. HNE-995. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation under medical expenses, pain and suffering and allied heads. However, the learned Tribunal declined to accept the projected income on the ground that the claimant had last worked in the year 1990 and there was no proof of actual income on the date of accident. Consequently, only 10,000/- was awarded towards loss of future earning capacity and loss of amenities. However, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of ₹ 50,000/- including other different heads like medical expenses, pain and suffering.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and inconsistent with the settled principles for determining just compensation. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal erred in ignoring the contract of employment duly proved on record showing that the appellant was selected as third Engineer and was to receive USD 1500 per month. It is argued that the income was not speculative but a concrete contractual appointment which the appellant could not join only because of the accident. It is further submitted that though the medical disability is assessed at 50%, the functional disability is 100% because the appellant can no longer work as a marine engineer, which requires full physical fitness and sea-worthiness certification and for that work he was found eligible and was contracted.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the award o