248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28.08.2025 Sunny Gera ... Appellant Versus Amar Nath and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Amandeep Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Nigam Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant challenging the award dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby an amount of ₹14,78,400/- was awarded as compensation to the claimant-

appellant for the injuries suffered by him.

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. In the present case the Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Loss of future earnings on account ₹7,77,600/-

of permanent disability

2 Medical expenses ₹6,44,803/-

3 Pain and suffering ₹10,000/-

4 Attendant charges & Special diet ₹5000/-

Interest 7% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that though income of the claimant-appellant has rightly been assessed and a multiplier method has correctly been applied, however, no amount has been awarded towards loss of future prospects, which ought to have been 40% keeping in view the age of the injured-claimant who was about 22 years of age.It is further the contention that the compensation awarded under the heads pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges and transportation are on the lower side and that no amount has been awarded towards loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and for the prosthetics. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases ofPappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. [2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 404] and that of the Delhi High Court in case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rohit Kumar & Ors. [2017 (7) AD (Delhi) 602]

5. Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company has contended that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation and no further enhancement is called for.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, at the time of accident, theclaimant-appellant was 22 years of age. PW5 Dr. Ravi Sauhta, Orthopedic Surgeon, Paras Hospital, Gurugram has deposed that on 12.10.2009, the claimant-appellant was attended to in the Emergency with four injuries including crush injury on left foot and ankle with degloving of the skin in the left leg. This witness further deposed that due to fractures, procedures were performed and left lower limb of the claimant-appellant was amputated below the knee. He further deposed that the claimant-appellant was discharged from hospital on 27.10.2009 in astable condition with follow-up in future. This witness proved on record the Medico-Legal Report as Ex.P64. Further, PW3 Dr. Arvind Jindal, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Gurugram has proved on record the disability of the clamant-appellant to the extent of 60% and deposed that the claimant-appellant was having traumatic amputation of left leg lower third below knee. In view of this evidence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability of the claimant-appellant as 60%. Otherwise also there is no challenge thereto.

8. Since there is no dispute so far as the income of the claimant- appellant and the multiplier method applied thereto by the Tribunal, the same are accordingly maintained. Further, the compensation under the pecuniary heads i.e. future earnings on account of permanent disability and medical expenses as awarded by the Tribunal is also not in dispute and the same is accordingly maintained.

9. Now coming to the compensation under the non-pecuniary heads, it is not in dispute tha