S. No.221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

FAO No.740 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision:16.03.2026 Sukhdev Singh .....Appellant Vs.

Rattan Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

(Through Video Conferencing).

Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate for the Insurance Company.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 5.11.2001 passed by MACT, Kurukshetra (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.273 of 2001 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.40,000/- 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 while driving offending vehicle bearing No.HR-07A/1102 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondents No.2 and 3, which was insured with respondent No.4.

2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned MACT:-

“1. Whether the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Rattan Singh, respondent No.1, driver of bus No.HR-07A/1102?OPP

2. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in this accident and is entitled to claim compensation on account of the same. If so, to which extent and from whom?OPP

3. Whether the insured violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. If so, to what effect?OPR

4. 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 Rs.40,000/- 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, payable by respondents No.1 to 4, jointly and severally.

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 while driving offending vehicle and respondents No.1 to 4 have been 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 and the same is affirmed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The compensation has not been awarded under the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as per settled law and the impugned award is thus liable to be enhanced.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for.

9. The law is well settled that the compensation to be awarded for injuries suffered by victim in a motor vehicular 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 c