IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 17.02.2026 Jatinder Kumar ... Appellant Versus Gurdeep Kumar and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Service of respondent Nos.1 and 2 dispensed with vide order dated 21.10.2022.

Mr. Sahej Mahajan, Advocate for Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

CM-8997-CII-2021

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 1024 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. However, the injured-appellant shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal. FAO-1132-2021

2. Present appeal has been filed by the injured-appellant aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 27.09.2016.

3. The Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Hospitalization charges, treatment ₹19,293/-

expenses and expenses incurred on medicines

2 Special Diet and attendant charges ₹49,000/-

3 Transportation charges ₹7,500/-

4 Pain and sufferings ₹20,000/- 5 Loss of income ₹23,820/-

6 Future loss of income ₹1,14,432/-

7 Loss of amenities of life ₹20,000/-

Total Compensation ₹2,54,045/

Interest 7.5% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the injured-appellant would contend that though he does not challenge the compensation awarded under the head medical bills, however, he has contended that functional disability qua the body has been taken as 7.5% though the disability as stated by PW-2 Dr. Ravi Kumar Preenja was 15%. It is further the contention that since the injured- appellant was working as a mason and due to the disability, which was a fracture right femur, he had stiffness in his right hip and would have difficulty in squatting and sitting cross legged. It was further stated by PW-2 that the disability was permanent in nature. PW-2 had further stated that if the person is working as a Raj-Mistri or a mason then it would be treated as 15% functional disability. Learned counsel for the injured-appellant has further contended that the injured-appellant remained admitted in hospital for a period of 19 days and even as per the statement of PW-2 the fracture would take about 3 to 4 months to unite and that even thereafter the injured-appellant would require treatment for removal of the implant. It is thus contended that the compensation awarded under the head loss of income, pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges and loss of amenities is on the lower side. Learned counsel for the injured-appellant has referred to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Aabid Khan vs. Dinesh & Ors. [2024 (2)

RCR (Civil) 617]

5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance Company would contend that the disability has rightly been assessed as 7.5% since the disability of 15% was qua the limb and therefore functional disability would be 7.5%. It is further the contention that sufficient amount has already been awarded under all the respective heads.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, PW-2 Dr. Ravi Kumar Preenja, Assistant Professor, Deptt. of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, who was also a member of Disability Board, had stepped into the witness-box. Certified copy of his statement has been handed over by learned counsel for the injured-appellant. As per the statement of PW- 2 the injured-appellant was found to be a post operated case of fracture of the right femur with stiffness of the right hip with difficulty in squatting and sitting cross legged. The disability was stated to be 15% permanent in nature. Said doctor further stated that if the person was working as a Raj Mistri or a mason then it is a functional disability as it affects his earning capacity since there was stiffness in his right hip and he would have difficulty in