212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.02.2026 KABUL SINGH ......... APPELLANT VERSUS PREM CHAND AND ANR.

.....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

*****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 14.05.2004 passed by MACT, Kurukshetra (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.88 of 2001 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of ₹48,600/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 (owner-cum-driver) while driving offending vehicle, which was insured with respondent No.2.

2. From the pleadings of parties, issues were framed and relevant issues are as under:-

“1. Whether the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Kabul Singh, respondent no 1, driver of motor cycle no CH-01-3954 or Prem Chand claimant-driver of motor-cycle no HR-07-C-1582 or of both? OPP xxxxxxxxxxx

3. Whether the claimant Kabul Singh claimant of M.A.CT case no.88 of 2001 suffered injuries and damage of motor-cycle no. CH-01-3954 belonging to claimant Kabul Singh, in this accident and is entitled to claim compensation on account of same.

If so, to what extent and from whom?OPP

4. Whether respondent Prem Chand is not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 5. Relief. ”

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹48,600/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest @

9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred.

The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1-Prem Chand, owner-cum-driver of offending vehicle No.HR-07-C-1582, which was insured with respondent No.2- National Insurance Company and both of them were held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

7. The law is well settled that the compensation to be awarded for injuries suffered by victim in a motor vehicluar accident should be just and equitable. Courts have consistently held that while money cannot erase the pain, suffering, or trauma but it is the only legal means to provide restitution and restore the victim to his previous position as far as possible for which ‘just compensation’ has to be assessed. It is also well settled that while it is impossible to fully compensate for the loss of limb, life, or quality of life, the compensation must be ‘Just’, meaning thereby, that it should be fair, reasonable, and equitable based on the evidence and not merely a ‘Windfall’ or a ‘Pittance’. The core objective is to put the injured/victim in the same position he would have been if the accident had not taken place, to the extent money can do so. This approach ensures that the law provides a realistic recompense for the trauma endured, rather than just providing normal relief.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 934 - G.Ravindranath @ R. Chow