IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.04.2026 RUPINDER KUMAR … APPELLANT VERSUS BALJIT PAL AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Jatinder Nagpal, Advocate, for Appellant.

Ms. Bhavna Kapur, Advocate for respondent No.2 (Through VC).

Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL,J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded vide award dated 07.06.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, on account of the injuries sustained by Rupinder Kumar, in a motor vehicular accident.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.06.1995, the appellant-claimant, Rupinder Kumar, was travelling as a passenger in a bus bearing registration No. PB-09/A-3600 from Patiala to Sirhind along with his brother-in-law. During the journey, a dispute arose with the conductor regarding payment of fare in smaller denominations. On this, the conductor misbehaved with the appellant and forcibly pushed him towards the front door of the bus. The driver, instead of preventing such conduct, started the bus in a rash and negligent manner while the appellant was in the process of alighting, causing him to fall from the moving bus and sustain multiple injuries resulting in permanent disability. The appellant was initially given treatment locally and thereafter admitted to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. He subsequently filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned ₹

Tribunal awarded a sum of 35,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, holding the driver, conductor and owner of the bus jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and is not commensurate with the nature of injuries and suffering endured by the appellant. It was argued that the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation under various settled heads, including pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transportation, attendant ₹

charges and special diet, and instead granted a meagre lump sum of 35,000/-. It was further submitted that despite the appellant having suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15%, no compensation was awarded on that account. On these grounds, it was urged that the impugned award deserves to be enhanced to ensure grant of just and reasonable compensation in accordance with law.

4. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3, while supporting the impugned award, submitted that the learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and has passed the award strictly in accordance with law. It was argued that the claim of injured appellant has been duly considered, and the amounts awarded under various heads are just, proper, and reasonable. It was further contended that no infirmity, perversity, or misreading of evidence can be attributed to the conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the complete records. On due consideration of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, particularly on the issue of negligence and fastening of liability, I find no reason to take a different view. Those findings are accordingly affirmed. However, the core issue arising in this appeal pertains to the reassessment of the quantum of compensation.

6. For the purpose of reassessment of compensation, the primary issue that arises for consideration is the extent of functional disability and its impact on the earning capacity of the appellant. In the present case, the appellant-claimant Rupinder Kumar was travelling a