264 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 10.03.2025 Sunder Singh ... Appellant(s)

Versus Harish Kumar & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Kuldeep Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant.

Service of respondent Nos.1 to 3 dispensed with vide order dated 07.03.2018.

Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for respondent No.4.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the injured claimant- appellant aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide the impugned award dated 07.06.2011 in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 15.12.2009.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts are not being adverted to for the sake of brevity.

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

4. Learned counsel for the injured claimant-appellant would contend that though the disability of the injured claimant-appellant has rightly been assessed to the extent of 85% and multiplier of 18 has also rightly been applied by the Tribunal, however, the income of the injured claimant- appellant as assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side inasmuch as the minimum wages of a skilled worker, prevalent at the time of the accident, were ₹4,564/- per month. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been 40%. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. [2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 404]. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the non-pecuniary heads is also on the lower side. The learned counsel has further contended that no amount has been awarded towards loss of marriage prospects, loss of amenities of life and cost of artificial limb.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.4-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the present case, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. Since, the disability of the injured claimant-appellant to the extent of 85% and multiplier of 18 as applied by the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are accordingly maintained. Admittedly, the injured claimant-appellant was a driver by profession and the Tribunal has assessed his income as ₹4,000/- per month, which in the opinion of this Court, is on the lower side inasmuch the accident in question pertains to 15.12.2009 and the minimum wages of a skilled worker at that time were ₹4,564/- per month. Hence, the income of the injured claimant-appellant is assessed as ₹4,564/- per month.

8. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) has held as under :

“12. In view of the above decisive rulings of this court, the High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on a determination of the income at the time of accident), the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects, @

40% (following the Pranay Sethi principle).

13. The factual narrative discloses that the appellant, a 20-year-old data entry operator (who had studied up to 12th standard) incurred permanent disability, i.e. loss of his right hand (which was amputated). The disability was assessed to be 89%. However, the tribunal and the High Court re-as