IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.02.2025 Satpal Singh ......Appellant Vs.

Mukesh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyat, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 08.12.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166/170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.4,55,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 01.10.2003.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends:-

(i) That the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced.

(ii) That the appellant/claimant was 38 years old, at the time of accident; was working as a Contractor and was earning Rs.35,000/- per month i.e. Rs.20,000/- from Contractor business and Rs.15,000/- from agricultural work.

(iii) That the appellant/claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 90% qua lower limb and 37% qua whole body and amputation of right leg below knee, as per disability certificate placed on record as Ex.P-22.

(iv) That the appellant/claimant remained admitted in the hospital for more than one month.

(v) That the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal towards pain and suffering, transportation and medical treatment is on lower side. Further contends that no amount has been awarded under the heads of loss of amenities, special diet, attendant charges, loss of future prospects, loss of income, medical expenses for future treatment and loss of amenities.

Therefore, the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant/claimant has not placed on record any documentary evidence in support of his income. As such, it cannot be said that the appellant/claimant was actually earning Rs.35,000/- per month from the Contractor business and agricultural work. Therefore, the income of the deceased is to be assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month in accordance with the minimum wages prescribed for skilled worker in the State of Haryana. A perusal of the award further shows that as per disability certificate (Exhibit P-22), the appellant/claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 90% qua lower limb and 37% qua whole body, along with amputation of right leg below knee.

7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and another, 2024 INSC 963, has treated the 75% disability of the appellant as 100% disability, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in Baby Sakshi Greola’s case is reproduced as under:-

“26. In this respect, it will be appropriate to refer to the evidence of Dr. Monica Juneja (PW-3). The Doctor proved the disability certificate. As per the said certificate, the appellant has suffered 75% disability. The appellant is suffering from moder