IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

213 FAO-527-2007 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 10.02.2025 Naresh Kumar ......Appellant Vs.

Sham Lal and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 13.10.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 08.07.2002.

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 THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further contends that the appellant was working as a labourer on a saw machine with one Prem Singh and was earning Rs.3500/- per month. He further contends:-

i) That the appellant had sustained permanent physical disability to the extent of 57%, as certified in the disability certificate (Ex. P-68). Given the nature of his occupation, the disability effectively renders him incapable of securing any gainful employment in future. Therefore, his functional disability should be assessed at 100%. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav 2023(9) Scale 707”.

ii) He further contends that the Ld. Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges and the amount granted for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life is on lower side. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by the Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted to the appellant/claimant. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

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

6. A perusal of the award shows that the Ld. Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month as the appellant is stated to be working as a labourer on a saw machine. Further, the appellant was unmarried at the time of the accident.

7. An examination of the award reveals that PW-2, Dr. Neeraj Gupta, a member of the Medical Board, testified that the appellant, Naresh Kumar, was assessed to have sustained a permanent physical disability of 57% in relation to his whole body. He also proved disability certificate, as Ex. P-68, which was signed by him and other members of the Board. Furthermore, a careful reading of the award indicates that the appellant/claimant was engaged as a labourer at the time of the incident. Given the nature and extent of his injuries—resulting in 57% permanent disability—it is evident that the functional impact of such impairment would render him incapable of continuing his previous employment or engaging in any gainful occupation. Consequently, his functional disability should be re-assessed as 100%. This conclusion finds support in the precedent established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rahul Ganpatrao Sable” supra, wherein, the Apex Court recognized that in cases where the nature of disability effectively precludes a person from engagi