IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:04.12.2025 HANSRAJ ...Appellant Versus SATISH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for for the appellant.

Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for Ms. Kanika, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.(ORAL)

1. This instant appeal is directed against the award dated 14.1.2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of ₹2,10,000/- along with 9% interest to the appellant on account of injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. On 17.11.2000 at about 5:30 a.m., the appellant Hansraj was travelling in a three-wheeler bearing registration No. (HR-29B-1211) on Mathura Road, Faridabad, proceeding towards Sector 15-16 chowk. When the vehicle reached slightly ahead of the said chowk, a Canter bearing registration No. (DL-1LB- 6088), being driven by respondent No.1 (Satish) in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and struck the three-wheeler with great force. As a consequence of the impact, the appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries. On these assertions, The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, seeking compensation of ₹5,00,000 for the injuries suffered in the accident.

3. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal concluded that the accident dated 17.11.2000 had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the driver of Canter No. (DL-1LB-6088). With respect to the injuries and medical treatment, relying on the MLR (Mark-A), the outdoor ticket (Ex. P-149) from B.K. Hospital, the medical records of AIIMS, and the disability certificate (Ex. P-26), the learned Tribunal held that the claimant had sustained grievous spinal injuries resulting in paraplegia and permanent total disability, leaving him dependent on an attendant for his routine activities. Upon scrutiny of the duly proved medical bills (Ex. P-1 to P-21 and Ex. P-127 to P-128), the learned Tribunal awarded medical expenses of ₹72,000 and further awarded appropriate sums towards conveyance, special diet, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, future medical requirements, and attendant charges. In the absence of any reliable proof of income, the learned Tribunal, by estimating that the claimant must have been earning something and would have continued to earn up to the age of 65 years, if not beyond, quantified the loss of earning and future earnings at ₹25,000. In addition, it awarded a sum of ₹50,000 towards disability, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life, thereby determining the total compensation at ₹2,10,000. On the question of liability, respondents No.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable. However, the driving licence produced by respondent No.1 was found to be forged, the learned Tribunal conferred upon respondent No.3 insurer the right to recover the compensation from the insured-

owner of the offending vehicle.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned award is wholly unsustainable as the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the medical evidence, disability certificate and the oral testimony of the claimant, resulting in the grant of grossly inadequate compensation. Learned counsel submitted that although the claimant had suffered grievous spinal injuries leading to paraplegia and permanent total disability, requiring prolonged treatment at AIIMS and lifelong attendant support, the learned Tribunal awarded only a meagre sum without applying the settled principles for determining just compensation. Learned counsel contended that the amounts awarded towards medical expenses, conveyance, special diet, attendant charges, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities are disproporti