IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :11.03.2026 DEVINDER SINGH ... APPELLANT VERSUS NARESH KUMAR AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Tanvi Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by injured-appellant- claimant, who had suffered injuries in motor vehicular accident dated 15.04.1999 on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 while driving the truck bearing registration No. HP-24-4415.

2. Being aggrieved by impugned award dated 16.08.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), vide which the injured-appellant-claimant was found entitled to total compensation of Rs. 48,600/-, the appellant-claimant is seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as the same is not in accordance with his entitlement.

3. Learned Tribunal has awarded following compensation to the injured-appellant-claimant:

Medical bills Rs. 4,400/-

Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/-

Special diet Rs. 5,000/-

Conveyance charges Rs. 10,000/-

Attendant charges Rs. 5,000 Loss of income during treatment Rs. 4,200/-

Total compensation awarded Rs. 48,600/-

4. The learned Tribunal has duly considered the extent of injuries, the period of hospitalization, and the nature of treatment as is clearly established from the evidence of PW-2 Dr. Rahul Bhan and PW-3 Dr. K.D.Sharma, the doctors examined by the claimant. The claimant is primarily aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded under various heads by the learned Tribunal and the non-grant of compensation for loss of earning capacity on account of permanent disability, loss of future amenities of life and loss of future prospects arising out of the said permanent disability.

5. From the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, it stands clearly proved that immediately after the accident the claimant was shifted to Sector 32 Hospital, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted from 15.04.1999 to 19.04.1999, and thereafter he was admitted to Sector 16 Hospital from 19.04.1999 to 05.05.1999. The claimant suffered mal-uniting fractures of both bones of the right leg. Surgery was performed and fixator was applied on his right leg during the surgical procedure carried out on 02.06.1999.

6. PW-3 further proved Ex. A-3 medical expenditure record, Ex. A-4 OPD Card of appellant-claimant, Ex. A-6 MLR and Ex. A-7 and Ex. A-8 discharge slip, which clearly establish the nature of injuries and treatment undergone by the claimant. It is thus evident that the appellant-claimant had suffered injuries on his right leg, including multiple fractures of the right lower leg, and also sustained injuries on his forearm. He remained admitted in the hospital from 19.04.1999 to 05.05.1999 and had to undergo surgery.

7. These facts are not being disputed even by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. However, the main dispute in the present case relates to the admissibility of the disability certificate i.e. Ex. A-1.

8. In the present case, Ex. A-1 disability certificate was proved by PW-1 Leeladhar, the clerk from the office of Civil Surgeon, who had produced the disability certificate on record as Ex. A-1. However, doctor issuing the same was not examined.

9. Perusal of the evidence of PW-1 shows that he had duly identified the signatures of the issuing doctor, namely Dr. S.P. Sharma, Additional CMO, and also clearly stated that the disability certificate was issued on the recommendation of Dr. R.K. Mittal, who had duly examined the claimant- appellant. PW-1 specifically identified the signatures of both the doctors appearing on the disability certificate. However, the learned Tribunal rejected the evidence of PW-1 and concluded that in the absence of the doctor who had issued the disability certificate, the said certificate could not be held t