Partly allowed

Dilbagh Rai v. Rameshwar Sharma and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2026FAO/1961/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of two appeals arising from a motor accident. It held the Tribunal erred in awarding inadequate compensation for a claimant with 80% functional disability and enhanced the award accordingly. Conversely, it dismissed the death claim appeal as heirs failed to prove financial dependency.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of ₹5,11,000/- awarded to Dilbag Rai payable jointly and severally with interest. Appeal by Naresh Kumar dismissed.

Dilbagh Rai Vs Rameshwar Sharma and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

I. FAO-1961-2004 (O&M)

¶3

Dilbag Rai . . . . Appellant Vs. Rameshwar Sharma and Another . . . . Respondents II. FAO-4957-2004 (O&M) Naresh Kumar and Another . . . . Appellants Vs. Rameshwar Sharma and Another . . . . Respondents

¶4

********

¶5

Reserved on: 21.04.2026 Pronounced on: 23.04.2026

¶6

Pronounced fully/opera;ve part: Fully

¶7

********

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶9

Argued by:- Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant(s).

¶10

Mr. Assem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. (through Video Conferencing) .

¶11

¶12

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶13

This common judgment shall dispose of two appeals arising out of the same motor vehicular accident dated 11.04.2002, which were decided by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, vide separate awards both dated 19.01.2004.

¶14

The factual matrix is not in dispute. On 11.04.2002, Dilbag Rai, Ramesh, and Rajendra Kumar were travelling in a Tata Sumo, when the vehicle developed a puncture near Ambala and was parked on the roadside with indicators on. While the driver and Rajendra Kumar were changing the tyre, another

¶15

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.23 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

FAO-1961-2004 (O&M) FAO-4957-2004 (O&M)

¶17

Tata Sumo bearing No. HR-07C-0251, driven rashly and at high speed, hit their vehicle from behind. Rajendra Kumar died on the spot, while Dilbag Rai and Ramesh sustained injuries.

¶18

Dilbag Rai filed a claim for compensa6on for his injuries, whereas Naresh Kumar (brother of the deceased) filed a separate claim for death compensa6on.

¶19

The Tribunal held the offending driver negligent and awarded ₹2,54,000/- to Dilbag Rai. However, it found that Naresh Kumar was not financially dependent on the deceased and granted only ₹50,000/- under no-fault liability to him and another brother.

¶20

The finding of the Tribunal holding respondent No.1 negligent has not been challenged and is affirmed. Under challenge in both the appeals is the finding qua quantum of compensa6on.

¶21

FAO No.1961 of 2004 (Injury Claim – Dilbag Rai)

¶22

The issue is whether the compensa6on awarded is just and ade-

¶23

quate.

¶24

As per the evidence on record, the claimant suffered amputa6on of the right lower limb, resul6ng in permanent disability assessed at 80%. The Tribunal, however, awarded only a lump sum amount without properly evaluating the effect of such disability on earning capacity.

¶25

It is now well seAled that the assessment must focus on func6onal disability, i.e., the impact of the injury on the earning capacity of the injured. The claimant being a dairy farmer was engaged in physically intensive work requiring mobility, balance, and sustained manual effort. Loss of a lower limb substan6ally impairs such capacity. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the func6onal disability ought to be assessed at 80%, as the

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.23 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

FAO-1961-2004 (O&M) FAO-4957-2004 (O&M)

¶29

injury has a near-total impact on the claimant’s ability to efficiently carry on his voca6on.

¶30

Loss of Future Earnings : The no6onal income of the claimant taken by the Tribunal at ₹2,500/- per month (₹30,000/- per annum), is not disputed. Since the claimant is 42 years of age, so by adding 25% towards future prospects, the annual income becomes ₹37,500/-. Applying the mul6plier of 14 (for age of 42 years), the total income comes to be ₹5,25,000/-.

¶31

Applying func6onal disability of 80%, the loss of future earning capacity is assessed at ₹4,20,000/-

¶32

Other Heads of Compensa�on : The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under conven6onal heads are found to be inadequate and are accordingly revised as under:

¶33

Medical expenses (including prosthesis already taken) : ₹40,000/-

¶34

Transporta6on, special diet and aAendant charges : ₹20,000/-

¶35

� Loss of income during treatment : ₹10,000/-

¶36

Future prosthe6c replacement and maintenance : ₹75,000/-

¶37

� Pain and suffering : ₹1,00,000/-

¶38

Loss of ameni6es and enjoyment of life : ₹1,00,000/-

¶39

Thus, the total compensa6on is computed at ₹4,20,000 + ₹40,000 + ₹20,000 + ₹10,000 + ₹75,000 + ₹1,00,000 + ₹1,00,000 = ₹7,65,000/-

¶40

AHer deduc6ng ₹2,54,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensa6on payable comes to ₹5,11,000/-

¶41

The appeal (FAO 1961-2004) is partly allowed accordingly. The claimant is en6tled to an enhanced compensa6on of ₹5,11,000/-, which shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally, along with an interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe66on 6ll its realiza6on.

¶42

Page 3 of 4

¶43

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.23 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

FAO-1961-2004 (O&M) FAO-4957-2004 (O&M)

¶45

FAO No.4957 of 2004 (Death of Rajendra Kumar)

¶46

The deceased was admiAedly 52 years old unmarried person. The claimants, being his brothers, are legal representa6ves but have failed to establish that they were financially dependent upon the deceased.

¶47

The evidence on record shows that claimant Naresh Kumar was himself a partner in the business and con6nued to derive income therefrom even aHer the death of the deceased. The other brother, Subhash, did not step into the witness box to prove dependency.

¶48

It is seAled law that mere legal heirship does not en6tle a claimant to compensa6on under the head of loss of dependency in the absence of proof of dependency.

¶49

In these circumstances, the Tribunal was jus6fied in restric6ng the compensa6on to ₹50,000/- under no-fault liability.

¶50

FAO No.4957 of 2004 is therefore dismissed, being devoid of any

¶51

merits.

¶52

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

¶53


23.04.2026
Nee�ka Tuteja
	Whether speaking/reasoned?	Yes
	Whether reportable?	No

¶54

Uploaded on.: 23.04.2026

¶55

Page 4 of 4

¶56

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.23 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Dilbagh Rai v. Rameshwar Sharma and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilbagh Rai v. Rameshwar Sharma and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashif Vs Sukhwant Singh @ Sukha etc.

Mahi Pal Andors Vs Gurchana Singh and Ors.

Nand Ram and Others Vs Raja Ram and Others

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Rashid Husan and Others

(O&M) Jagdish etc. Vs Ram Niwas etc.

Major Singh Vs Hakam Singh and Ors.