250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 18.02.2026 Deepak ... Appellant Versus Satyawan and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Satya Vir Singh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the injured-appellant aggrieved by the award dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’).

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

3. In the accident, which took place on 07.06.2017, the injured- appellant herein suffered grievous injuries as a result of which he has been rendered 100% disabled. The Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :

Sr.No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Compensation on account of expenses ₹2,94,770/-

on medical treatment

2 Monthly income of the claimant ₹8,300/- 3 Loss of earning per month on account ₹8,300/-

of 100% disability (100% of ₹8,300)

4. Learned counsel for the injured-appellant relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. [2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 404] would contend that though a multiplier method has been applied, no addition has been made towards the loss of future prospects. It is further the contention that even the amount awarded under the other heads i.e. pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects is on the lower side. Learned counsel for the injured- appellant has further contended that no amount has been awarded towards loss of amenities of life and that a lump sum amount of ₹50,000/- has been awarded under the heads ‘attendant charges’, ‘transportation’ and ‘special diet’, which is on the lower side. Learned counsel for the injured-appellant has further contended that the minimum wages for an unskilled worker at the relevant point of time were ₹7,600/- per month and being 100% disabled the injured-appellant would require two attendants for life.

5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company would contend that sufficient amount has already been awarded and the income of the injured-appellant has also been assessed as per DC rates.

6. Heard.

7. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. In the present case, the injured-appellant is stated to be 100%

disabled. As per the statement of PW-1 Dr. Vinod Kamal, Orthopaedics Surgeon, Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College & Hospital, Karnal, the disability is such that the injured-appellant would not be able to walk without any help. He will also not be able to carry out his daily activities like sitting by himself, eating or even answering the call of nature and for everything he would require an attendant each and every day. In his cross- examination, it has been stated that the disability is not likely to be reduced with the passage of time.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3- Insurance Company has challenged the income as assessed by the Tribunal on the ground that it has been assessed as per the DC rates. However, in the absence of any appeal having been filed by the Insurance Company, the income of the injured-appellant as assessed by the Tribunal is maintained. Further, though the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier method, however, no addition has been made towards loss of future prospects. Admittedly, the injured-appellant at the time of accident was 20 years of age and accordingly an addition of 40% towards loss of future p