IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 08, 2025 Sukhbir Singh ......Appellant Vs.

Raj Kumar and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Himanshu Garg, Advocate for Ms. Shweta Sanghi, Advocate (Through VC)

for the appellant.

Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for Mr. Puneet Jain, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 and 4-Insurance Co.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 06.02.2007 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, 'the Tribunal'), for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, on account of injuries suffered by him in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 18.09.2004.

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 required to be reproduced for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side, as the appellant was 32 years of age at the time of accident. He was serving in the Indian Army at the time of the accident. He submits that due to the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, the index finger of his left hand was amputated and on account of permanent disability, the Board of Doctors of Army declared him unfit for service.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant would have received pension only, if he would have completed continued service of 17 years, however, he was discharged from service on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident. He further submits that at the time of the accident, the appellant had completed approximately 12 years of service in the Army. He, thus prays that the present appeal be allowed.

5. 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. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

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

7. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant was 32 years of age at the time of accident and was serving in the Indian Army. It is not in dispute that the appellant met with an accident on 18.09.2004 and due to accident, his left index finger was amputated. Further a medical Board was constituted to assess the injury suffered by the appellant in the accident and he was placed in Low Medical Category w.e.f 20.01.2005 and his disability was assessed between 11 to 14 per cent, as per Mark A-9. The learned Tribunal has gravely erred in law in concluding that the discharge of the appellant from his service was not due to any amputation but as per Mark A-10, it is very much clear that the appellant was discharged from the service after being placed in Medical category lower than SHAPE-I and not up to the prescribed minimum physical standard. Thus, there is no doubt that the appellant was relieved from his service due to amputation occurred in the accident. 8. The appellant was drawing a gross salary of Rs.8389/- per month at the time of accident, as per Mark A-12. The Tribunal has gravely erred in law in granting a compensation of only Rs.25,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant in the accident. Even though, the perusal of the record shows that the appellant suffered 11 to 14% permanent disability on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident and due to injury, he was relieved from service as well. The service conditions of the appellant are such that he has to serve minimum 15 years in the Army to become eligible for the pensionary benefits. But