IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH and XOBJC-66-CII-2022 Date of decision: 11.09.2025 National Insurance Company Limited ..Appellant Versus Dinesh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for claimant/respondent no.1/cross objector MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby a sum of Rs.15,65,857/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant- Dinesh, on account of permanent disability due to injuries sustained by him in the vehicular accident, who has filed cross objection No.66-

CII-2022 for enhancement of the compensation.

2. Since there is no dispute with regard to the facts of the case, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

3. The accident in question took place on 24.10.2014 and the claimant was 25 years old at the relevant time. The Tribunal assessed the compensation as under:-

Sr.No Head Amount awarded

1. Monthly income 8000/-

2. Permanent disability/loss of working capacity 4000/- per month @ 50%

3. Annual income 48000/-

4000x 12= 48000/-

4. Future prospects @ 40% 67200

48000x40% = 19200/- [19200+48000=67200]

5. Mutliplier 18

6. Loss on account of permanent disability 12,09,600/-

67200x18 = 12,09,600/-

7. Pain & sufferings 75,000/- 8. Special diet 20,000/- 9. Transportation charges 11,000/-

10. Medical expenses 2,50,257/-

Total Rs.15,65,857/-

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that though Tribunal has rightly assessed functional disability of claimant/injured as 50%, however, it has erred in assessing his income at the rate of Rs.8000/- per month, without there being any evidence thereof. He states that income assessed is more than that of minimum wages of a highly skilled worker i.e Rs.6289/- at the time of accident. He further submits that claimant is also not entitled to multiplier and escalation in income on account of future prospects. Therefore, he submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and needs to be reassessed. He places reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anoop Maheshwari vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others (Civil Apeal Nos. 12098-12099-2024) decided on 04.09.2025 wherein it has been held that loss of future prospects cannot be granted to a claimant who has suffered 50% disability as there is no difficulty in continuing with his business and he has also been fitted with prosthetic leg, which ensures mobility and continuance of business. Therefore, 40%

enhancement in annual income is held to be improper.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for cross-objector/claimant has vehemently argued that no doubt permanent disability of claimant is 69%, however, his functional disability be assessed as 100%. He was a young man aged 25 years at the time of accident. He has placed on record certified copy of statement of Dr. Pardeep Kumar, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Panipat (PW6) wherein it has been stated that Dinesh-injured is a case of head injury with mild left side hemiparesis. Operated case of fracture femur right side with implant in situ, united case of fracture both bone leg right side with decrees range of motion at right knee and right hip joint. In his cross examination , doctor has stated that it is incorrect to suggest that the patient Dinesh is not suffering 25% disability with regard to the head injury. It is incorrect to suggest that other parts of the body of patient are working properly and normally. The patient suffering from paralysis on the left side and patient sustain disability 61% on right side lower limb,which called orthopaedic disability. He further submits that income of the claimant ass