##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

FAO-1984-2003 (O&M)

Date of decision: 27.04.2026

Gaje Singh . . . . Appellant

Vs.

Raj Singh @ Golia and others . . . . Respondents

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr. P.K. Chug, Advocate, for

Mr. V.P. Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate,

for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the injured–claimant seeking

modification of the award dated 02.01.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, to the limited extent of enhancement of compensation.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant sustained injuries in a motor

vehicular accident which occurred on 09.09.1999 on account of rash and negligent

driving of jeep bearing registration No. HR-19-7255. The learned Tribunal, upon

appreciation of the evidence, returned a finding that the accident was caused due

to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The said finding has

attained finality and is not under challenge in the present appeal.

3. While assessing compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of

₹75,000/- to the appellant under various heads and held the respondents jointly

and severally liable to pay the said amount along with interest. The Insurance

Company was directed to satisfy the award in the first instance, with liberty to

recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has

erred in not awarding any amount towards permanent disability, despite the fact

that a disability certificate (mark ‘A’) indicating 15% permanent disability was

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.04.28 18:03

I agree to specified portions of

this document

Chandigarh

FAO-1984-2003 2026:PHHC:064180

placed on record. It is argued that even though the members of the medical board

were not examined, the Tribunal ought to have considered the said certificate,

especially keeping in view that proceedings before the Claims Tribunal are

summary in nature and strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. However, it is

fairly conceded that in case the disability certificate is taken into consideration, a

marginal enhancement may be permissible.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,

this Court finds that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹50,000/- towards

pain and suffering, ₹20,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses, and

₹5,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment. Considering the

nature of injuries, which included a fracture of the right knee necessitating two

surgical interventions, the compensation awarded under these heads appears to

be just and reasonable and does not call for interference.

7. The only issue that arises for consideration is with regard to

compensation on account of permanent disability.

8. It is not in dispute that the appellant had placed on record a disability

certificate indicating 15% permanent disability. Although the said certificate has

not been formally proved in accordance with the strict rules of evidence, it is

equally well settled that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

are summary in nature and the Tribunal/Court is required to adopt a pragmatic

approach in assessing the amount of just compensation. The object of the

legislation being beneficial, a hyper-technical approach in appreciating evidence is

to be eschewed.

9. At the same time, it must be noted that there is no evidence on record

to establish the functional impact of the said disability on the earning capacity of

the appellant. In the absence of such evidence, it would not be appropriate to

compute loss of future earnings by applying the multiplier method.

10. However, the fact remains that the appellant has suffered a

permanent physical disability, which would in