Allowed¶13

Surender v. Khem Bahadur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Nov 2025FAO/1497/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO-1497-2002 (O&M); Surender v. Khem Bahadur and others; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Deepak Gupta, J.; decided 21.11.2025; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award dated 11.09.2001; Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act; enhancement of compensation; 10% permanent disability; income Rs. 3,000 per month; age 23 years; multiplier 18; future prospects 40%; National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009; interest 7.5% per annum; truck No.HR-06-7785; accident dated 06.10.1997; insurance company liability.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs. 1,00,000/- over and above the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 1,04,000/-, payable by respondent No.3-Insurance Company with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization.

Surender Vs Khem Bahadur and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was inadequate under the head of disability, given that the appellant-injured had sustained 10% permanent disability, so as to require enhancement.

¶8

Court's answer

Taking the injured appellant's income as Rs. 3,000/- per month and his age as 23 years, the Court applied multiplier 18 together with 40% future prospects in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

On the above basis, the compensation attributable to the 10% permanent disability works out to Rs. 90,700/-.

¶13

Key takeaways

To make the figure a round one and considering the time lag during which the appellant had been waiting for compensation, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal; the present appeal is accepted accordingly.ratio¶13
The insurance company shall pay the enhanced compensation along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Enhancement of motor accident compensation (High Court of Punjab and Haryana, FAO-1497-2002 (O&M), decided 21.11.2025, Deepak Gupta, J.). The appellant, injured on 06.10.1997 in an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of truck No.HR-06-7785, had been awarded Rs. 1,04,000/- with interest by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide award dated 11.09.2001 on his claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Contending that adequate compensation had not been granted under the head of disability for his 10% permanent disability, and with learned counsel for the insurance company not disputing the factual position, the Court — taking the injured's income as Rs. 3,000/- per month at age 23, and applying multiplier 18 with 40% future prospects in view of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 — computed the 10% disability component as Rs. 90,700/-, and rounding it up and considering the time lag, awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- over and above the Tribunal award, payable by the insurance company with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization. Appeal accepted; disposed of.

¶1

FAO-1497-2002 (O&M) [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO-1497-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.11.2025

¶4

Surender ...Appellant

¶5

Versus Khem Bahadur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate and Mr. Pritam S. Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Vijay Garg, Advocate (Through VC) for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. ****

¶6

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶7

Appellant before this Court sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 06.10.1997, due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HR-06-7785. In the claim pe>>on under Sec>on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensa>on of ₹1,04,000/- along with interest vide award dated 11.09.2001.

¶8

Seeking enhancement, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that adequate compensa>on has not been granted under the head of disability, inasmuch as, the injured – appellant had sustained 10% permanent disability.

¶9

Learned counsel for the insurance company does not dispute the aforesaid factual posi>on.

¶10

The income of the injured at the relevant >me was of ₹3,000/per month. He was 23 years of age. By taking into account, the mul>plier of

¶11

YOGESH MEHTA 2025.11.21 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶12

FAO-1497-2002 (O&M) [2]

¶13

18; and future prospects of 40% in view of the judgment passed in “Na�onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others ” 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, the compensa>on to the extent of 10% works out to be ₹90,700/-. In order to make it as a round figure and considering the >me lag during which the appellant has been wai>ng for the compensa>on to be awarded to him, an amount of ₹1,00,000/- is awarded to him over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. The present appeal is hereby accepted accordingly. The insurance company shall pay the enhanced compensa>on along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe>>on, >ll its actual realiza>on.

¶14

Disposed of.

¶15

21.11.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

¶16

YOGESH MEHTA 2025.11.21 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Surender v. Khem Bahadur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender v. Khem Bahadur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Improvement Trust Bhatinda Vs Satinder Kaur

(O&M) Bhiwani Improvement Trust, Bhiwani, Vs Geeta Devi etc.

(O&M) Zubedan etc. Vs Pritam Singh etc.

Amar Singh Sapra Vs Ram Lal etc.

Om Parkash Vs Santosh

Kamlesh and Ors. Vs Mahabir Brick Company Arnecha