IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BHULLA SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS ….Appellant(s)

Vs.

SANDEEP AND OTHERS ….Respondents

1 The date when the judgment was reserved 23.02.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 16.03.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 16.03.2026

4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced Full or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment Not and reasons thereof. applicable CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Rahul Verma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vishwajeet for respondents No. 1 & 2.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 30.10.2007, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 1,31,437/- was awarded as compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization, on account of injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident, which occurred on 18.03.2006.

FACTS

2. The appellant, being injured filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only), on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 18.03.2006 while alleging rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-46-6150 being driven by respondent No. 1/driver.

3. After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by the parties, learned Tribunal vide award dated 30.10.2007, arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and awarded Rs. 1,31,437/- as compensation.

4. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid award dated 30.10.2007; the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant(s)/claimant(s) for enhancement of compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition and the issue regarding negligence of the driver been recorded in favour of the appellant/claimant by the learned Tribunal being not in dispute, therefore, for the sake of brevity, those are not being repeated here.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT(S)

5. Learned counsel for the appellant(s)/claimant(s) contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal was wholly inadequate and assessed without proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal misread and misconstrued the oral as well as the documentary evidence while determining the compensation and failed to take into consideration the nature and gravity of injuries suffered by the appellant in the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The appellant suffered multiple grievous injuries and fractures; remained unconscious for a considerable period, and underwent prolonged treatment including two surgical operations. Learned counsel further argued that the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15%, which adversely affected his earning capacity and overall quality of life, yet the learned Tribunal awarded only a meagre sum of Rs.1,37,437/-, which did not constitute just and fair compensation. He also submitted that the Tribunal also erred in awarding interest only from the date of filing of the claim petition instead of from the date of accident. On these premises, it was prayed that the impugned award be suitably modified and the compensation be enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till realization.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS No. 1 & 2.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 vehemently contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was adequately compensate