IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 14.01.2025 Sumitra Devi ....Appellant VERSUS Jairam @ Jag Parkash and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Arvind Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 04.02.2012 on account of the injuries received by her in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 18.11.2008, rendering her 100%

disabled.

2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Compensation on account of Rs.3,69,852/-

expenses for getting medical treatment which includes hospitalization charges, expenses in purchasing medicines etc.

2 Compensation on account of pain Rs.50,000/-

and suffering and future prospects

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side inasmuch as the income of the claimant-appellant has been assessed as Rs.3600/- per month as per the minimum wages whereas the claimant-appellant in the present case was a student of B.Com. final year. Relying on the judgment of this Court in FAO-1386-2013 [Palwinder Kaur & Ors. vs. Surinder Singh & Ors.] decided on 15.03.2024, where the notional income of the deceased, who was a student of 10+2, was assessed as Rs.10,000/- per month for an accident which took place in 2006, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that income of the claimant-appellant ought to have been assessed @ atleast Rs.15,000/- per month. It is further the contention that no amount has been awarded towards loss of future prospects and the multiplier has also wrongly been applied. It has further been contended that no amount has been awarded towards loss of amenities of life and loss of marriage prospects and that the amounts awarded under the heads pain and suffering, attendant charges, special diet and transportation charges are also on the lower side. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhimanyu Partap Singh vs. Namita Sekhon & Anr. [2022 (3) RCR (Civil) 557] to contend that the attendant charges ought to have been granted for life keeping in view the fact that the claimant-

appellant herein is 100% disabled.

5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3 has vehemently contended that income of the claimant-appellant has rightly been assessed, and that sufficient amount of compensation has already been awarded and there is no scope of any further enhancement.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, it has been duly proved by way of cogent evidence by Dr. Ashok Saini, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Rewari who stepped into the witness-box as PW-7 that the claimant-appellant herein was 25 years of age at the time of accident and had suffered 100% disability due to a head injury with altered sensorium with bowel and urine incontinence. Ex.PW-7/A is her disability certificate. It has further come in the cross-examination, on a suggestion put by the respondents, that the disability is permanent and would not improve with the passage of time or physiotherapy.

8. In case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343]

the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under :

“General principles relating to compensation in injury cases :

5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`the Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior t