IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH XOBJC-176-CII-2015 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

....Appellant Vs.

BAL CHAND (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRs AND OTHERS ....Respondents Reserved on : 08.04.2026 Pronounced on: 23.04.2026 Uploaded on : 27.04.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company.

Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for cross-objectors/respondent No.1(i) & (ii).

Mr. Sandeep Berwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 03.11.2015.

Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.-4-Insurance Company.

* * * *

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

FAO-3803-2015 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against award dated 02.01.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein, the appellant/insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the tune of Rs.18,81,404/- along with interest @7.5%, on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher side.

XOBJC-176-CII-2015

2. The present cross-objections have been preferred by cross-objector/legal heirs of claimant-Bal Chand against the award dated 02.01.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation, granted to Bal Chand (since deceased) to the tune of Rs.18,81,404/- along with interest @7.5% per annum on account of injuries suffered by Bal Chand (since deceased) in the accident.

3. Since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross- objections filed by the cross-objectors/legal heirs of the claimant are arising out of the same award dated 02.01.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, FAO-3803-2015 and XOBJC-176-CII-2015 are decided vide this common judgment.

4 As sole issue for determination in the present appeal/cross-objection 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 here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

5. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is excessive and not in consonance with the evidence on record. He further ₹

contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding sum of 18,01,404/- towards loss of future income without due appreciation of the fact that the claimant (since deceased) was in permanent employment and continued to draw salary even after the accident. He further contends that the evidence reveals that ₹

the claimant was earning 18,196/- per month at the time of the accident, which ₹

subsequently increased to 29,064/-, thereby demonstrating the absence of any actual loss of earning capacity. On this premise, it is urged that the amount awarded under the head of loss of future income is unsustainable and liable to be set aside, and consequently, the overall compensation deserves to be reduced.

The appellant, therefore, prays for allowing the present appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant– cross-objector submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is, in fact, inadequate. He further contends that the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation towards loss of future earning capacity, as the injuries sustained in the accident have adversely impacted the claimant’s functional efficiency and future prospects, notwithstanding the continuation of employment. He further contends that the amount awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and other non-pecuniary damages is meagre and does not refle