IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3889 of 2002(O&M) Date of decision: 25.02.2026 Baby Meenakshi …Appellant Versus Arjun & Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ankur Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate For respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad vide award dated 03.05.2002.

2. The facts emerging from the record are that on 27.08.1998, the appellant–claimant Meenakshi, aged about 13 years and a student of 9th class, along with others, was waiting for a bus near Rest House, Palwal, when she was struck by truck No. HRU-1170, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2. The accident resulted in multiple injuries to the claimant including fracture of left femur. Separate claim petitions were filed by the injured persons and were decided by a common award, whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation of ₹30,000/- to the present claimant while fastening joint and several liability upon the respondents, to pay the same with interest.

3. Assailing the adequacy of the award, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the seriousness of the injury, prolonged treatment, and the permanent disability assessed at 10%. It is argued that the claimant being a minor school-going girl suffered not only physical pain but also long-term discomfort affecting her enjoyment of life.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that though disability is proved, there is no material to establish loss of earning capacity and therefore, the multiplier method cannot be invoked, though moderate enhancement may be considered.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is manifestly inadequate and does not satisfy the requirement of awarding “just compensation” contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. The Tribunal itself has recorded findings that the claimant sustained fracture of femur, remained confined to bed for a considerable period and suffered 10% permanent disability duly proved by medical evidence. However, despite recording these findings, the Tribunal awarded only a token amount which fails to reflect the gravity of the injury and its lasting impact on the life of a young girl.

7. It is well settled that assessment of compensation in injury cases, particularly involving children, cannot be confined to strict proof of medical bills. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that compensation must adequately account for pain, suffering, loss of amenities and the overall impact of injury on the quality of life, and that non-pecuniary damages cannot be measured with mathematical precision but must be determined on a reasonable and judicious basis.

8. Further, in Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 14 SCC 396, the Supreme Court emphasized that where minor victims suffer permanent disability, a liberal and realistic approach must be adopted even in the absence of proof of income or loss of earning capacity, since disability affects the child’s future prospects, mobility, and enjoyment of life. The Court recognized that the trauma of disability during formative years warrants adequate compensation under non-pecuniary considerations.

9. Similarly, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, the Supreme Court reiterated that compensation in cases of injured minors must reflect the lifelong impact of disability on dignity, independence, and quality of life, and that courts must adopt a compassionate and pragmatic approach to ensure meaningful restitution.

10. Applying the aforesaid principles, the approach adopted by the Tribunal in restric