Tara Chand Vs Chiranji Lal and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Tara Chand Vs Chiranji Lal and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enhancement of compensation from ₹1,47,000/- to ₹1,85,000/- (enhancement of ₹38,000/-); the enhanced amount to carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization; all other terms and conditions of the award, mode of payment and apportionment to remain unaltered.

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation awarded to the appellant-claimant is just and reasonable or calls for enhancement (the finding on negligence having attained finality).

Court's answer

The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence has not been assailed before this Court and has thus attained finality.

Ratio / Principle

The finding on negligence stands duly substantiated from the record: the copy of FIR (Ex. PW2/A) and the copy of challan (Ex. PW1) clearly establish that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by respondent No.1.

Key takeaways

Since the appellant placed no documentary evidence of his exact monthly income, the structured formula laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 cannot be strictly applied, and assessment must be made on the nature of the injuries and the impact on quality of life.ratio¶36
Considering the accident occurred in 1999 and the absence of financial proof, the Tribunal's award of Rs. 40,000/- under the disability head is a realistic and balanced assessment; this Court finds no reason to interfere with that portion of the award.ratio¶36
Compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to be just, fair and reasonable, and cannot be confined to the exact amount of bills produced on record.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor accident compensation enhancement — FAO-1660-2003, decided 06.05.2026 by Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal (Punjab & Haryana HC). Claimant injured on 30.04.1999 in a collision near Tajpur turning between a Tata 407 (HR-46/1648) driven by respondent No.5 (Satyapal) and a truck (HRM-3697) driven by respondent No.1 (Chiranjilal); he suffered fractures of the maxilla, mandible and zygoma with 10% disability. The Tribunal's negligence finding (anchored in FIR Ex. PW2/A and challan Ex. PW1, attributing the accident to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No.1) was not assailed and attained finality. MACT Narnaul award dated 07.12.2002 of Rs.1,47,000/- with 9% interest (liability joint and several on respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4) was modified on quantum alone. The Rs. 40,000/- disability award was upheld (structured formula in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 not strictly applicable for want of income proof) and the ₹50,000/- pain-and-suffering award affirmed. Relying on S.166 MV Act (just compensation not confined to bills produced) and Abhimanyu Partap Singh (2022) 8 SCC 489, pecuniary heads were reassessed: medical ₹30,000, attendant ₹10,000, special diet ₹10,000, transportation ₹10,000, loss of income during treatment ₹15,000, future medical ₹10,000; and per Sri Benson George (2022) 13 SCC 142 a further ₹10,000 was awarded for loss of amenities. Total compensation enhanced to ₹1,85,000/- (enhancement ₹38,000/-), the enhanced portion carrying 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization; other terms, mode of payment and apportionment unaltered.

FAO-1660-2003 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(243)

�� �� ��

Tara Chand

...Appellant

Versus

Chiranji Lal A n d others ... Respondents

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present: M r . Pranav Arora, Advocate, for M s . Shaveta Sanghi, Advocate, fo r the appellant.

M r . R.C Gupta, Advocate, fo r respondent No.4 /National Ins u rance Company. M r . R.C. Kapoor, Advocate, fo r respondent No. 7 /United Indi a Insurance Company. *******

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

The pre s ent appeal has been preferre d by the claimant–appellant seeking e nhancement of compensation a warded by the learned Motor Acciden t Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (h e reinafter referred to as “the learned T ribunal”), vide award dated 0 7 .12.2002 , whereby a sum of Rs.1,47, 0 00/- along with interest @ 9 % per annumwas granted on account of injuries sustained by him i n a motor vehicular accident dated 30 . 04.1999 .

Briefly s t ated, the claimant was travelli n g from Ateli to Narnaul in a Tata 407 bearing registration No. HR-4 6 /1648 (hereinafter mentioned as TAT A 407) along with his brothers, after closing their business premises. The said vehicle was being d r iven at a moderate speed and

ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-1660-2003 2

on the c o rrect side of the road by respo n dent no.5 named as Satyapal. When t h e vehicle reached near Tajp u r turning, a truck bearing registration No. HRM-3697, being driv e n by respondent No.1 named as Chira n jilal, came from the opposite d i rection at a high speed and in a rash a n d negligent manner and struc k against the Tata 407, as a result o f which the vehicle overturne d . In the said accident, the claimant Tarachand sustained multiple i njuries and was immediately taken to C ivil Hospital, Narnaul for treat m ent. It is the specific case of the clai m ant that the accident occurred d ue to the rash and negligent driving o f the offending vehicles by res p ondent No.1 and respondent No.5, b o th of whom are alleged to b e equally responsible for the occurren c e. Hence, the present claim petition was filed seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles A ct, 1988. 3. Upon n o tice, the respondents appear e d and contested the claim petition. Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 filed their written statements and contested the matter, whereas resp o ndent Nos. 3, 5 and 6 were proceed e d against Ex-Parte. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues and, upon apprec i ation of the oral as well as docume n tary evidence on record, partly a llowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of ₹1,47,000/- along wi t h interest @ 9% per annum. The liab i lity to pay the awarded comp e nsation was fastened jointly and severally upon respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Dissatisfied with the impugne d award, the appellant has file d this appeal for enhancement of comp e nsation.

ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-1660-2003 3

Learned counsel for the appellant-claim a nt contended that on the day of the a c cident, the appellant and his two brothers were travelling from At e li to Narnaul in a Tata-407 ( N o. HR-46-1648). When they reached near Village Tajpur, a truck (No. HRM-3697) driven by respond e nt No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit their vehicle from the opposite side. Furthermore, this col l ision caused the Tata-407 to overturn , resulting in serious injuries to all occupants including appellan t . In addition to this, it was e mphasized that the learned Tribunal , through its award dated 07.12.2002, correctly held respond e nt No. 1 responsible for the acc i dent and decided the issue of negligen c e in favor of the appellant. Consequently, while the finding on negli g ence was correct, the appellant has filed this appeal because the com p ensation of Rs. 1,47,000/- awa r ded by thelearned Tribunal is insuffici e nt and needs to be increased a n d warrants enhancement. It is further s ubmitted that the appellant w as taken to Civil Hospital, Narnaul, from the place of occurrence a nd medico-legally examined vide ML R PW1/C. Thereafter, keeping i n view his serious injuries, he was re m oved to Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur, where he remaine d admitted for a long period. H e also received treatment at Gautam Hospital, Joshi Hospital, Par m ar Hospital, Saini Hospital, Dr.Rajin d erNarula’s Hospital, Dr. Ba j aj Clinic, Eye Hospital of Dr.Muk e shGoel, Hospital of Dr.Rathi, H ospital of Dr. Vijay Yadav, Raj Hos p ital and of Dr.Ansuya. He was operated upon for his nose and jaws. He spent about Rs. 1,00,000/- o n his treatment. Besides that, he had employed an attendant @ Rs.1, 0 00/- per month to look after

ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-1660-2003 4

him. Th e appellant proved on record that there was fracture of maxilla, left men d ile and zygena and was opera t ed upon for the said injuries. He deve l oped disability to the extent o f 10%. That in support of his expendit u re, he has produced on recor d the available bills, vouchers etc. Th a t the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.1,47, 0 00/-, which is highly on low e r side. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.4,203/- on account of me d ical bills, transport charges, telephon e charges and special diet; Rs.40,000/- were awarded on account o f permanent disability; Rs.50,0 0 0/- were awarded on account of pain a n d suffering and Rs.15,000/- were awarded on account of loss of inco m e. However, no amount w a s awarded on account of employ m ent of attendant. That the a m ount awarded under various heads w a s not sufficient and adequate keeping in view the amount spent b y the appellant on his treatment under various heads, the permane n t disability suffered by him, t h e pain and suffering due to multiple fractures and treatment receive d for a longer period and the loss of i n come. Therefore, it was pray e d that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be increased t o Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest, s o that the appellant gets the act u al relief he deserves. 5. Per cont r a, learned counsel for responde n t No. 4 (National Insurance Compan y ) and respondent No. 7 (Unit e d India Insurance Company) contend e d that the impugned award doe s not suffer from any illegality or perve r sity and has been passed after d u e appreciation of oral as well as docu m entary evidence. It was sub m itted that the appellant has failed to substantiate the claim for enh a ncement by leading reliable

ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-1660-2003 5

evidence. It is maintained that the find i ngs recorded by the learned Tribunal are well-reasoned and do not c a ll for any interference by this Court. C onsequently, it is prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal.

Having considered the rival submissi o ns and upon a meticulous perusal o f the record, with the able ass i stance of learned counsel for the parti e s, this Court is of the consid e red view that the impugned award d a ted 07.12.2002, passed by lea r ned Tribunal, does not fully conform to the settled principles of law governing just and equitable compensation to the appellant-claimant.

At the o u tset, it is noticed that the fin d ing recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence has not been assailed before this Court an d , thus, has attained finality. Even otherwise, the said finding stands d u ly substantiated from the re c ord. The copy of FIR (Ex. PW2/A) and the copy of challan (Ex. P W 1) clearly establish that the accident in question occurred on accoun t of rash and negligent driving of the o f fending truck by respondent N o.1. The only question that arises f o r consideration in the pres e nt appeal is whether the compensation awarded to the appellant i s just and reasonable or calls for enha n cement.

From th e material available on record, i t is evident that the appellant had suff e red multiple grievous injuries, i ncluding fractures of maxilla (upper j a w), mandible (lower jaw) and zygoma (cheek bone). Such injuries a re not superficial in nature b u t relate to vital facial bones forming t he structure of the face, thereb y affecting essential functions

ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-1660-2003 6

like che w ing, speaking and facial sy m metry. The record further reveals t h at the appellant had to underg o surgical intervention for the said inju r ies. Fractures of the maxilla a n d mandible generally require fixation through surgical procedures, resulting in prolonged immobil i zation of the jaw, causing considerable difficulty in eating, speaking and day-to-day activities. Sim i larly, fracture of the zygoma affects t h e cheek structure and may lea d to facial deformity, pain and complic a tions relating to vision or facial movement. It is, thus, evident that the a ppellant must have undergone s evere pain and trauma during the peri o d of treatment. The nature of i n juries also indicates that the recovery would not have been immedi a te and would have required prolonged medical care, restricted di e t and continuous follow-up treatmen t which is proved from the reco r d of SMS Hospital, Jaipur, it is clear that the petitioner was havi n g fractures of maxilla, left mandibl e and zygoma and remained ad m itted in the said hospital from 01.05.19 9 9 to 07.05.1999 .

Regardi n g the compensation for disab i lity, the record includes the original disability certificate (Ex. P W 4/6) , which confirms the permane n t impact of these injuries. However, it is noted that the appellan t did not place on record any do c umentary evidence regarding his exact monthly income at the time of t he accident. Consequently, in the abse n ce of such vital records, the learned Tribunal was forced to estimate the compensation. Building up o n this, while the injuries were severe, t h e learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on the disabilit y head. However, the record is silent regarding the monthly

ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-1660-2003 7

income o f the appellant at the time of t h e accident. In the absence of these vit a l parameters, the structured for m ula laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 cannot be strictly applied. Consequ e ntly, the learned Tribunal was required to make an assessm e nt based on the nature of the i n juries and the impact on the quality o f life. Considering the acciden t occurred in 1999, the award of ₹40,0 0 0/- under the head of disabilit y is found to be a realistic and balanced assessment. This Court finds n o reason to interfere with this portion of the award, as it provides fair compensation for the permane n t impact of the injuries in the a b sence of financial proof. 10. The app e llant has duly proved the ex p enditure incurred during the course o f treatment through documentar y evidence. The medical bills and cash memos pertaining to purchase o f medicines, exhibited as Ex. P2–P3 ( t wice), Ex. P9–P16, Ex. P24– P 45, Ex. P50–P59 (Ex. P57 twice), E x. P62–P71 (Ex. P64 twice), E x . P74–P80, Ex. P89, Ex. P93, Ex. P94 and Ex. P130–P139 (Ex. P 131 twice) , substantiate an expendit u re of ₹13,847.42 /- towards medicines. In addition, the claimant has proved travel tickets Ex. P 5–P8, Ex. P17–P23 and Ex. P107–P129 (₹1,678 /-) , vehicle receipts E x. P139 and Ex. P141–P146 (₹10,250/-) , telephone bills Ex. P46–P 4 9 (₹41.30) , and special diet bills (mi l k and juice) Ex. P140–P148 an d Ex. P60–P61 (₹12,023/- and ₹2,190/respectively) . The learned Trib u nal, upon appreciation of the said mat e rial, has awarded a consolidat e d sum of ₹42,030/- under the heads o f medical, transport, telephon e and special diet expenses. Howeve r , upon re-appraisal of the entir e record, this Court finds that

ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-1660-2003 8

the said amount does not adequately reflect the pecuniary losses actually suffered by the appellant. The evidence on record demonst r ates that the appellant r e mained hospitalized from 01.05.19 9 9 to 07.05.1999 and there a fter continued to undergo treatmen t , which necessarily entailed r e peated visits, special dietary require m ents and incidental expenses, m any of which, by their very nature, cannot be strictly supported by d ocumentary proof. It is well settled t h at compensation under Sectio n 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is required to be just, fair a n d reasonable, and cannot be confined to the exact amount of bi l ls produced on record. In Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon (2022) 8 SCC 489 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recogn i zed that expenses towards attendan t care and future treatment a re integral components of compensation in cases involving prolo n ged incapacity. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, duration of treatment and the cumulative effect of the documentary evidence, this Court deems it appropriate to reassess the pecuniary compensation. A ccordingly, the appellant is held en t itled to ₹30,000/- towards m edical expenses, ₹10,000/towards attendant charges, ₹10,000/- to w ards special diet, ₹10,000/towards transportation, ₹15,000/- tow a rds loss of income during treatmen t , and ₹10,000/- towards futu r e medical expenses, thereby ensuring a fair and reasonable recom p ense for the losses directly arising f r om the accident. 11. The lear n ed Tribunal has awarded a s u m of ₹50,000/- towards pain and suff e ring which, in the facts and c ircumstances of the case, is

ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-1660-2003 9

found to be just and reasonable and is accordingly affirmed. However, it is w e ll settled that compensation must also encompass nonpecuniar y losses such as loss of ame n ities and diminution in the quality of life. In Sri Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2022) 13 SCC 142, the Ho n ’ble Supreme Court has held that suc h losses cannot be assessed mec h anically and must reflect the nature a n d extent of suffering. Consid e ring the appellant’s grievous injuries, prolonged treatment and conse q uent hardship, a further sum of₹10,000 /- is awarded towards loss o f amenities of life . The total compensation shall, accordingly, stand r e vised.

In view o f the foregoing discussion, the p resent appeal is allowed. The compensation awarded by the learne d Tribunal at ₹1,47,000/- is enhance d to ₹1,85,000/-, thereby resulti n g in a marginal enhancement of ₹38,0 0 0/-. All other terms and cond i tions of the award, mode of payment , and apportionment, shall remai n unaltered.

The enhanced amount of compensati o n, i.e., over and above the amount a warded by the learned Tribunal , shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p er annum from the date of fili n g of the claim petition till its realizati o n.

All pend i ng miscellaneous applications, i f any, stand disposed of.

	(AMARI N	DER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE
May,06, 2026
Anil	Whether speaking/reasoned :	Yes/No
	Whether reportable :	Yes/No

ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-1660-2003 10

ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.11 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document