Gian Chand Vs Om Pal and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gian Chand Vs Om Pal and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enhancement of compensation: 40% of income added as future prospects with monthly income reassessed, multiplier 17 applied (injured aged 27), functional disability fixed at 80% and loss of income assessed at 80% as the claimant lived by physical labour; Rs. 45,000/- medical expenses (actuals) affirmed; Rs. 10,000/- special diet, Rs. 25,000/- attendant charges, Rs. 10,000/- transport charges and Rs. 50,000/- loss & suffering added; remainder of the award left undisturbed; amounts already paid in execution to be set off.

Issue for consideration

Quantum alone is in issue: the claimant-appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. +1 more

Court's answer

With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the appeal is disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

Nothing had been awarded on account of future prospects; the claimant is entitled to 40% of the income on account of future prospects, and the monthly income is to be assessed accordingly.

Key takeaways

A multiplier of 17 applies because the injured was 27 years old at the time of the accident.ratio¶24
The claimant suffered 80% disability; functional disability is taken as equivalent thereto, and since the appellant earned his livelihood by physical labour, loss of income is assessed at 80%.ratio¶24
The Tribunal's award of Rs. 45,000/- towards medical expenses on actual basis requires no modification.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Pankaj Jain, J.), decision dated 09.12.2024, disposed of a claimant's FAO seeking enhancement of a Tribunal award of Rs. 1,70,000/- for injuries leaving a 27-year-old matriculate bangles-shop owner with 80% disability. Observing that nothing had been awarded on account of future prospects, the Court added 40% of income towards future prospects and directed reassessment of monthly income accordingly; applied a multiplier of 17; took functional disability as equivalent to the 80% bodily disability and, because the appellant earned his livelihood by physical labour, assessed loss of income at 80%. The Tribunal's Rs. 45,000/- towards medical expenses (actuals) was affirmed. Further sums of Rs. 10,000/- (special diet), Rs. 25,000/- (attendant charges), Rs. 10,000/- (transport) and Rs. 50,000/- (loss & suffering) were added; the remainder of the award stood, with amounts already paid in execution to be set off.

FAO No.1472 of 1995 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.1472 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.12.2024

Gian Chand

....Appellant

Versus

Om Pal and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present : None for the appellant.

Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for the respondent/Insurance Co.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Claimant is in appeal.

Issue involved in the appeal is qua quantum only. Appellant

seeks enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal while assessing the income, observed as under :

“30. The petitioner has been running a bangles shop where he was selling some other items of merchandise also. His income must have been Rs.1500/- to Rs.2000/- because even labourers earn around Rs.1000/- now-a-days. The petitioner is a matriculate per certificate Ex.P.65. His age was about 27 years and the whole life lies ahead which he is to face with xx leg. He, however, can still attend to his shop. It xxxx difficult to assess the amount of compensation. Here again the court has to bring into play its training of mind and hits own experience of men and matters. Some amount of approximation will be inherent. Keeping in view all the pervading circumstances, and the nature and extent of

Deepak Kumar 2025.01.10 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO No.1472 of 1995 (O&M)

2

disability, I assess the compensation on this count at Rs.80,000/-. Even otherwise if the extent of disability is taken at Rs.500/- per month or Rs.6000/- per year, and the multiplier of sixteen is applied, the amount shall come to over Rs.96000/-

Thus petitioner is entitled to amount of Rs.45000/- on account of expenditure on treatment Rs.45000/- on account of pain and suffering and Rs.80,000/- on account of permanent disability total of which come to Rs.1,70,000/-.

Per findings returned under Issue No.1 & 2 Om Pal was the driver of the offending vehicle which was insured with respondent No.3., United India Insurance Company Ltd. and was owned by respondent no.2 Nanak Chand. Said three respondents, in their said capacity, are liable to pay the said compensation jointly and severally and the issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner, and against the said respondent No.1 to 3 to the effect that they shall pay the compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- to the petitioner.”

Counsel for the respondent/insurer is not in position to dispute

that nothing has been awarded on account of future prospects. Claimant is entitled for 40% of the income to be awarded on account of future prospects. Monthly income be assessed accordingly. Multiplier of 17 would be applicable keeping in view that the injured at the time of accident was 27 years old. Claimant suffered disability to the extent of 80%. Functional disability is taken equivalent thereto. Since the appellant was involved in physical labour to earn his livelihood, loss of income is assessed at 80%. Tribunal awarded medical expanses of Rs. 45,000/- on actual basis. The same need no modification. The claimant is further entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of special diet, Rs. 25,000/- as attendant

Deepak Kumar 2025.01.10 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO No.1472 of 1995 (O&M)

3

charges, Rs. 10,000/- as transport charges and Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss & suffering. Rest of the award needs no modification.

With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the instant appeal is disposed off.

Needless to say any amount already paid in execution of the award shall be set off.

Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed off.

December 09, 2024	(Pankaj Jain)
Dpr	�� Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

Deepak Kumar 2025.01.10 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document