IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

244 Date of decision: 22.01.2026 FAO-6479-2019(O&M)

Darshan Lal @ Darshan Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Harpal Singh & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. D.K. Prajapati, Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.19,45,790/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 02.07.2019 passed in MACT Case No.424 dated 25.07.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 11.11.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.PB-23M-5224 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Respondent No.3 was held liable to pay the compensation amount.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that in the accident in question, the appellant has suffered 86% permanent disability, which has been assessed as 90% functional disability by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that the appellant has undergone amputation of right leg above the knee and amputation of left toe. It is submitted that prior to the accident, the appellant was working as a Raj Mistri. It is pointed out that as per the recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, functional disability has to be assessed in terms of the job being done by the claimant/injured prior to the accident. Learned counsel submits that in view of the amputation of the right leg above the knee and amputation of the left toe, the appellant shall never be able to work again and therefore, his functional disability ought to have been assessed as 100%.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant refers to the medical evidence on record in detail to submit that in view of the amputation of the right leg of the appellant, learned Tribunal also ought to have awarded some amount towards artificial limb. It is submitted that the appellant had examined the concerned official from the Artificial Limb Centre recognized by the Chandigarh Administration who deposed that the appellant visited their Centre for fitment of prosthesis and after taking his physical examination, his physical requirement for artificial limb was suggested for Endolite Right Above Knee Prosthesis. The cost of said artificial limb is Rs. 5,22,800/- and the approximate life of above said artificial limb is about 5 to 6 years; whereafter according to its condition it has to be replaced at the cost prevalent at that time. Even during the period of 5 to 6 years, the artificial limb may require necessary repair and maintenance which costs around Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. However, Ld. Tribunal erred in allowing only total of Rs.1,75,000/- for the artificial limb and future expenses on artificial limb. Whereas, considering the above said deposition of the official of the artificial limb centre and high above knee amputation of appellant and his life expectancy as well as the life and maintenance cost of artificial limb, reasonable compensation deserves to be allowed for artificial limb including its maintenance cost and replacements in future.

5. In support, ld. Counsel relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7192/2022 titled as “G. Vivek Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.” Decided on 12.10.2022, wherein it is held that:-

“10. It may be seen that the High Court has not employed any reasoning, logic or evidence to reduc