SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 78167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudeepti Sharma, J
Kulvinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jivan Lal – Respondent
FAO-5798-2013



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nitesh Jhajhria, Akshay Sharma
For the Respondents: V.K. Garg

A minor child suffering permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to receive compensation based on the minimum wages of a skilled worker, including future prospects and a proper multiplier, alongside independent compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of future marriage prospects.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Quantum of compensation - Injury case - Minor child suffering permanent disability - Entitled to enhancement based on notional income of a skilled workman, future prospects, and multiplier method - Tribunal erred in awarding lump sum without considering loss of future income, pain and suffering, and loss of marriage prospects. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 18, 20)

(B) Appellate Court - Powers in compensation matters - Courts have an obligation to award 'just' compensation - Appellate court must ensure that the compensation restores the claimant to the position prior to the accident, considering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. (Paras 5, 6, 23)

Facts of the case:
The appellant suffered severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident at the age of 9, receiving an initial award of Rs. 4,96,000/-. He appealed for enhancement, citing the scale of his disability (50%) and the inadequacy of the original compensation under various heads such as loss of future income, prospects, and non-pecuniary damages.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the claimant is entitled to a re-calculation of compensation based on skilled labour wages, adding 40% for future prospects and applying a multiplier of 18, along with significant enhancements for pain, suffering, and loss of life amenities.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in the calculation of compensation for a minor and whether the compensation for pain, suffering, and permanent disability should be enhanced.

Ratio Decidendi: A minor child who suffers permanent disability cannot be treated as a non-earning individual; compensation must be computed using at least the minimum wages for a skilled workman, including future prospects and appropriate multipliers, distinct from non-pecuniary heads like permanent disability and pain/suffering.

Result: Appeal allowed with enhancement to Rs. 27,10,686/- at 9% interest.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeal regarding quantum of compensation in injury case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. principles for assessing compensation for minors and permanent disability using multipliers and skilled wage benchmarks. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. guidelines for quantifying non-pecuniary damages including pain, suffering, and loss of marriage prospects. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. final calculation of enhanced compensation and interest directions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 05.07.2013 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘1988 Act’), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.4,96,000/- along with 6 % interest on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant – Kulvinder Singh in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 23.11.2009.

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. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted to the appellant/claimant. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

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

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, has held as under:-

General principles relating to compensation in injury cases

5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467).

6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :

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, com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top