IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 05.03.2025 KAPIL CHOPRA AND ANR .... Appellants VERSUS SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Jashan Chopra, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ishan Cooner, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants impugning the award dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby an amount of ₹19,87,662 had been awarded in favour of claimant- appellant No.1 and claim petition qua claimant-appellant No.2 was dismissed.

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. At the outset learned counsel for the claimant-appellants states that he does not wish to press the present appeal qua claimant-appellant No.2.

4. In view thereof, the present appeal is dismissed as not pressed qua claimant-appellant No.2.

5. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation in favour of claimant-appellant No.1 :

6. Learned counsel for claimant-appellant No.1 would contend that claimant-appellant No.1 had suffered serious injuries in the accident in question rendering him disabled to the extent of 100% and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the pecuniary and non- pecuniary heads is on the lower side and is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343]; Jagdish vs. Mohan & Ors. [2018 (2) RCR (Civil) 308] and Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. [2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 404]. Learned counsel for claimant-appellant No.1 has further relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhimanyu Partap Singh vs. Namita Sekhon & Anr. [2022 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 557] to contend that the attendant charges ought to have been granted for life keeping in view the extent of disability suffered by claimant-appellant No.1 herein. Learned counsel has thus prayed for enhancing the compensation on all the heads.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently contended that sufficient amount of compensation had already been awarded and there is no scope of any further enhancement.

8. Heard.

9. In the present case, Dr. Rajesh Chhabara, Assistant Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, PGI, Chandigarh and Member of the Board consisting of Chairman and Convener was examined as CW-1, who testified that claimant-appellant No.1 herein was aged about 43 years at the time of accident and due to the accident in question he had suffered 100% disability. This witness further proved on record the disability certificate of claimant- appellant No.1 as Ex.C-1. It has further been testified by this witness that the disability suffered by claimant-appellant No.1 is qua the whole body and is permanent in nature.

10. In the case of Raj Kumar (supra) 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 to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suff