Kamlesh Vs Jai Pal and Ors.

The aforesaid two appeals have been instituted against the Award dated 27.01.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal ( for short “Tribunal” ) in the petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the appellants, seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by

¶23

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

FAO-1872-2005 WITH -2FAO-2031-2005

¶25

Kamlesh and Ram Pal @ Pala Ram.

¶26

Claim petition No.52 of 2003, titled Kamlesh Vs. Jai Pal and others was instituted by claimant-Kamlesh, for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1-Jai Pal, while driving offending Car No. HR-29-G-5316, owned by respondents No.2 and 3.

¶27

Claim petition No.51 of 2003, titled Ram Pal @ Pala Ram Vs. Jai Pal and others was instituted by claimant-Ram Pal @ Pala Ram, for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the same accident.

¶28

From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed in both petitions by learned Tribunal:-

¶29

“1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of car No. HR-29-G-5316 by respondent No.1?OPP.

¶30

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.

¶31

3. Whether on the date of accident, Naveen Kumar was the owner of the car in question, if so to what effect ? OPR.2.

¶32

4. Relief.”

¶33

Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

¶34

After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- as compensation to the claimantKamlesh, on account of injuries suffered by her. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded as compensation to claimant Ram Pal @ Pala Ram on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of

¶35

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

FAO-1872-2005 WITH -3FAO-2031-2005

¶37

claim petition till realization payable by respondents No.1 and 2, jointly and severally.

¶38

Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

¶39

The only issue required to be determined in the present appeals relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving offending Car No. HR-29-G-5316, which was owned by respondent No.2. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant in FAO-1872-2005 argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The claimant had suffered 13% permanent disability and she has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.45,000/-, for expenses incurred on treatment, medicines, transportation, special diet, pain and suffering, loss of income during treatment and permanent disability. Learned counsel further argued that the compensation has not been awarded for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as per settled law. Learned counsel prayed that impugned award is thus liable to be modified and appellant is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation.

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellant in FAO-2031-2005 argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the

¶42

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

FAO-1872-2005 WITH -4FAO-2031-2005

¶44

correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The claimant had suffered 7% permanent disability and he has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.50,000/-, for expenses incurred on treatment, medicines, transportation, special diet, pain and suffering, loss of income during treatment and permanent disability. Learned counsel further argued that the compensation has not been awarded for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as per settled law. Learned counsel prayed that impugned award is thus liable to be modified and appellant is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation.

¶45

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the award in question in both petitions is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for.

¶46

12. Compensation in FAO-1872-2005, Kamlesh Vs. Jai Pal and others,

¶47

arising out of MACT No.52 of 2003:-

¶48

As per version of claimant Kamlesh, she had suffered fracture in her leg and she has led in evidence her MLR Ex.PF, according to which, she has suffered following injuries:-

¶49

“ 1. There was lacerated wound on scalp right thigh size 0.75 x 0.5 cm. 2. Contusion over right leg in middle size 2 x 1 cm, 3. There was pip cast on right leg as per and there was lacerated wound over right leg, complain of pain. Advised X-ray.”

¶50

She has also led in evidence X-ray report Ex.PG, which shows that she had suffered fracture of right leg A.P., fracture lower side fibia, meaning thereby, she had suffered two fractures. Besides this, she has also led in evidence

¶51

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

FAO-1872-2005 WITH FAO-2031-2005

¶53

-5-

¶54

disability certificate Ex.PJ issued by Board of Doctors of Civil Hospital, Kaithal, according to which, she has suffered 13% disability, which is as under:-

¶55

“The patient was having Bony deformity with delayed union in functional position with wasting(2%) with 1” shortening.(5%). For this, 13% disability was given with respect to right lower limb.”

¶56

The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the claimant as compensation which includes Rs.15,000/- for expenses incurred on treatment, transportation and special diet, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering and loss of income during the period of treatment and a sum of Rs.20,000/- for future loss of income due to permanent disability, which in my opinion is inadequate. Claimant had suffered two fractures and it is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and such injuries take a long time to heal. I t must have taken at least three months for the injuries to heal and taking into consideration the severity of injuries, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’ .

¶57

16. No bills were produced regarding expenses incurred on treatment and a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded on account of expenses incurred on treatment, transportation and on special diet, which is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-.

¶58

17. It can be assumed that claimant must be earning at least Rs.3,500/per month even as per minimum wages in the year 2003. It must have taken at least three months for the injuries to heal. During this period, she would not have been able to do any work and accordingly, she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of income during the period of treatment.

¶59

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

FAO-1872-2005 WITH -6FAO-2031-2005

¶61

18. So far as disability is concerned, the disability suffered by the claimant pertains only to a particular limb and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal on account of permanent disability, which in my opinion has been reasonably assessed and same does not require any enhancement.

¶62

Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is assessed

¶63

as under:-

¶64

Sr. No.	Head	This Court (₹)
1.	Loss of future income due to permanent disability	Rs.20,000/-
2.	Pain & suffering	Rs.25,000/-
3.	Treatment, Transportation and special diet	Rs.20,000/-
4.	Loss of income during treatment	Rs.10,000/-
	Total	Rs.75,000/-

¶65

Accordingly, enhanced compensation payable to claimant comes to Rs. 30,000/- (Rs.75,000/- - Rs.45,000/-).

¶66

Compensation in FAO-2031-2005, Ram Pal @ Pala Ram Vs. Jai Pal and others, arising out of MACT No.51 of 2003 :-

¶67

As per version of claimant Ram Pal @ Pala Ram, he had suffered fracture in his right leg and was taken to Bharat Hospital, Kaithal from where he was shifted to General Hospital, Kaithal wherein he remained admitted upto 17.02.2003. Thereafter, he was taken to PGI Chandiarh and was operated upon and a rod was inserted in his leg. Claimant has led in evidence his MLR Ex.PD, which shows that he had suffered following injuries:-

¶68

“ 1. There was swelling on right thigh in middle, size 4 x 2

¶69

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶70

FAO-1872-2005 WITH FAO-2031-2005

¶71

-7-

¶72

cm. Advised X-ray.

¶73

2. There was gap in a right ankle joint. Advised X-ray. . 3. There was lacerated wound size 1 x 0.5 cm in middle of the foot. Advised X-ray.

¶74

4. contusion over right hand index finger size 1 x 0.5 cm.”

¶75

Besides this, claimant has also led in evidence X-ray report Ex.PE, which shows that he had suffered fracture of right thigh A.P. fracture upper end. Besides this, he has also led in evidence the disability certificate Ex.PK in which it has been observed as under:-

¶76

“Patient was having wasting right thigh moderately on comp.) 1” in Girth) 5%. to left thigh with mild restrictions extreme flucion at right knee.”

¶77

24. On the basis of the treatment record and the medical evidence placed on file, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant had suffered fracture in his leg and he was operated upon in PGI Chandigarh and an implant was inserted. He remained in the hospital for 15 days and has suffered 7% permanent disability and awarded him a total compensation of Rs.50,000 out of which, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was awarded for expenses incurred on treatment, medicines, transportation and special diet, a sum of Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering and loss of income during the period of treatment and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for future loss of income due to disability.

¶78

25. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. The accident had taken place in the year 2003. Claimant had suffered fracture in his leg and he was operated upon and it is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and such injuries take a long time to heal. It must have taken at least three months for the injuries to heal and taking into consideration the severity of injuries, claimant is held entitled

¶79

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶80

FAO-1872-2005 WITH FAO-2031-2005

¶81

-8-

¶82

to a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’ .

¶83

26. It can be assumed that claimant must be earning at least Rs.3,500/per month even as per minimum wages in the year 2003. It must have taken at least three months for the injuries to heal. During this period, he would not have been able to do any work and accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of income during the period of treatment.

¶84

27. During this period, he must have spent some amount on transportation as he had visited PGI Chandigarh for treatment and he had also followed up treatment after discharge from the hospital. He must also have spent some amount on special diet and in engaging an attendant and he is according held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- under these heads.

¶85

As per bills produced on file, claimant had spent Rs.2,015/- at PGI and another payment of Rs.24,803/- was made at PGI and he has thus spent about Rs.26,818/-. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that the patients or their attendants do not preserve all the bills and some more amount must have been spent on treatment and he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of expenses incurred on treatment.

¶86

29. So far as disability is concerned, the disability suffered by the claimant pertains only to a particular limb and a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded on account of permanent disability, which in my opinion has been reasonably assessed and same does not require any enhancement.

¶87

Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is assessed as under:-

¶88

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶89

FAO-1872-2005 WITH FAO-2031-2005

¶90

-9-

¶91

Sr. No.	Head	This Court (₹)
1.	Loss of future income due to permanent disability	Rs.10,000/-
2.	Pain & suffering	Rs.25,000/-
3.	Transportation, special diet and attendant charges	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Loss of income during treatment	Rs.10,000/-
5.	Expenses incurred on treatment	Rs.30,000/-
	Total	Rs.90,000/-

¶92

Accordingly, enhanced compensation payable to claimants comes to Rs. 40,000/- (Rs.90,000/- - Rs.50,000/-).

¶93

As a result of aforesaid discussion, both the aforesaid appeals are partly accepted with costs.

¶94

In FAO-1872-2005, appellant-Kamlesh is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 16.07.2003 till realization payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

¶95

In FAO-2031-2005, appellant-Ram Pal @ Pala Ram is held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 16.07.2003 till realization payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

¶96

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case.

¶97

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶98

FAO-1872-2005 WITH -10FAO-2031-2005

¶99

Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶100

(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
03.07.2026 JUDGE
Priyanka Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶101

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.06 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kamlesh v. Jai Pal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh v. Jai Pal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudesh Kumari Vs Sube Singh

Kamal Mehandiratta Vs Jamuna Shaw and Ors.

Santosh Kumari Atreja and Others Vs Satish Kumar and Others

Ram Pal @ Pala Ram Vs Jai Pal & Ors.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Jagir Singh

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Haryana