IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :16.09.2025 MANJIT SINGH ... APPELLANT VERSUS KARAM SINGH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: None for the appellant.

Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

The appellant has preferred the First Appeal, being aggrieved by the award of Rs.70,000/- granted vide award dated 04.01.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal).

2. The case of the appellant-claimant was that on 17.02.1996, he was riding truck bearing No. PUR-9596, which was driven rashly and negligently at high speed by respondent No. 1. As a result of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the appellant-claimant sustained injuries in the accident. Both the arms were fractured. At the time of accident, he was 30 years old, earning Rs. 1,700/- per month, and working as SPO Cook. That the appellant has since become permanently disabled. Reliance has been placed on permanent disability certificate indicating 45% permanent disability.

3. Considering the case of the appellant, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 70,000/-. The appellant is seeking enhancement of the said compensation on the ground that compensation was not awarded separately under each head. According to the appellant, the law mandates assessment of compensation under distinct heads, whereas he has been granted only a lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/- covering all heads collectively.

4. On consideration, I find that the appellant was successful in proving that he had suffered injuries in the accident dated 17.02.1996. He sustained fractures on both arms and has also suffered permanent disability to the extent of 45%. The appellant-claimant has claimed that he was 30 years old at the time of the accident and was earning Rs. 17,00/- while working as SPO Cook.

5. However, perusal of the award reveals that no evidence was placed on record to substantiate the income claimed by the appellant-claimant. The alleged employer was not examined, and the appellant was the sole witness, appearing as PW-1. Furthermore, neither the appointment letter nor salary certificate was produced. Therefore, the appellant-claimant has failed to prove his pleadings regarding his vocation and income. At best, he can be considered to be an unskilled worker. Accordingly, the minimum wages applicable in the year 1996, i.e., Rs. 1,400/- per month, is taken as the monthly income of the appellant-

injured.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas & Anr., 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 934 had held that in a case of accident resulting in injuries to the victim, the compensation in personal injury cases should be determined under the following heads :

Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non pecuniary damages (General damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

In personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv) - It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of claimant that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expe