IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 11.09.2025 Date of Decision: 09.10.2025 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

......Appellant Vs.

SHIV KUMAR AND ORS.

......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance company against the Award dated 29.09.2012 passed in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant-Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant to the tune of Rs.5,81,445/- along with interest @ 6% per annum.

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 and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the disability of the respondent No.1/claimant as 20% while calculating compensation. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and award dated 29.09.2012 be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant contends that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation given to the claimant.

Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 (owner and driver, respectively) contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. Therefore, he also prays that present appeal be allowed.

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

7. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-

“19. Now coming to the disability of petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner had suffered 20 per cent disability. There is document Ex.P19 i.e. salary slip of petitioner and as per that petitioner was drawing the salary in the month of August 2010 of Rs. 16,595/- which includes basic pay, grade pay, medical, H.R.A. and D.A. and after deduction of the H.R.A. out of the total salary, the same comes to Rs.15,485/- and this Tribunal takes the same in round figure as Rs.15,000/-, which comes to Rs.1,80,000/- per annum. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 AIR SC 3104, the multiplier of 13 will apply in this case. By applying the multiplier of 13, the loss of income comes to Rs.1,80,000/-x13=Rs.23,40,000/-. Since the petitioner had suffered disability to the extent of 20 per cent, he is entitled to 20 per cent of that amount which comes to Rs.4,68,000/-.”

8. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the disability of the deceased is without substance and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

9. The learned Tribunal has thoroughly examined the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, including the disability certificate of Shiv Kumar (claimant) (Ex.P-1), testimony of Dr. Bimla Gawri as PW-1, Dr. J.P. Bharal as PW-2, Shiv Kumar as PW-3, advice of second operation of Shiv Kumar (Ex.P-7) which prima facie shows the disability suffered by respondent No.1/claimant is assessed 20%. Therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly taken this fact into consideration and calculated loss of income to the extent of 20%

disability due to the alleged injury.

10. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any error in the lea