IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4387 of 2002(O&M) Date of decision: 26.02.2026 Niranjan Singh …Appellant Versus Kuldip Singh & Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondent No.1 and 2/driver and owner Already ex-parte.

Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate For respondent-Insurance Company.

***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh vide Award dated 19.07.2002, the challenge being confined to the quantum of compensation.

2. It is not in dispute that the appellant–claimant Niranjan Singh sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident dated 07.07.1999 caused by rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR03-6480, driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2, and insured with respondent No.3. The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed by the Tribunal and compensation of ₹1,00,000/- was awarded under various heads, including ₹60,000/- towards permanent disability.

3. Seeking enhancement, learned counsel for the claimant has contended that despite continuation of his government service after the accident, the claimant suffered permanent disability and, therefore, compensation ought to have been assessed by applying the multiplier method, been placed upon the judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited v.

Satish Chandra Sharma and another 2022 (2) TAC 6.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the claim for enhancement on the ground that the claimant continued in government service without reduction in salary and must be drawing the same pension post- retirement, thereby ruling out any loss of earning capacity. It has further been submitted that recovery rights already granted to the insurer in earlier proceedings must be preserved.

5. The driver and owner, despite service of notice, have chosen not to appear and were proceeded against ex parte.

6. Upon appraisal of the record, it emerges that as per Disability Certificate Ex.11, the claimant sustained a head injury resulting in 57% permanent disability, with no likelihood of improvement. The Tribunal also noticed impairment of memory attributable to the injury. However, the claimant admittedly continued in service without diminution in salary and no evidence was produced to establish reduction in pensionary benefits post-retirement.

7. In these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly refrained from assessing compensation for loss of future earning capacity by applying the multiplier method. It is well settled that physical disability does not automatically translate into functional disability affecting earning capacity, particularly where the claimant continues in the same employment with unchanged emoluments. Application of the multiplier method is justified only when the disability demonstrably impacts earning capacity.

8. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the claimant upon Satish Chandra Sharma’s case (supra) is misplaced. In that case, although the claimant remained in service, evidence established loss of specific allowances, altered service conditions and deprivation of certain future financial benefits attributable to the injuries. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ultimately declined to apply the multiplier method and instead granted a lump sum enhancement considering the peculiar facts.

9. The present case stands on a similar footing insofar as absence of proof of loss of income is concerned. Therefore, adoption of the multiplier warranted.

10. At the same time, the nature of injury and the extent of permanent disability cannot be ignored. The claimant suffered significant head injury resulting in 57% impairment and cognitive deficit affecting memory. Even where earning capacity remains unaffected, compensation must adequately reflect the impact of permanent disability on