Sanjiv Kumar Vs Krishan Kumar and Ors.

1	The date when the judgment was reserv ed	21.04.2026
2	The date when thejudgment ispronoun ced	02.06.2026
3	The date website when the judgment is uploaded on the	02.06.2026
4	Whether pronounc pronounc only operative part of the judg ed or whether the full judgme ed ment is nt is	Full
5	The delay judgment , if any, of the pronouncement , and reasons thereof. of full	Not applicable

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶11

Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Sanjiv Kodan, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Co m pany.

¶13

¶14

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

¶15

1. By way of present appeal, challen g e has been laid to the Award d a ted 31.01.2024 pas s ed by the learned Motor Acci d ent Claims Tribunal, Kaithal ( for short, “the Tri b unal”), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,54,017/- w as awarded in fav o ur of the appellant along with i nterest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing o f claim petition till its realizatio n on account of injuries suffere d by him in a motor v ehicular accident. 2. As sole issue for determination in present appeals is confine d to quantum of co m pensation awarded by the Trib u nal, a detailed narration of fact s of the case is not r e produced herein for the sake o f brevity.

¶16

MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt

¶17

2

¶18

FAO NO.2001 OF 2024 (O&M)

¶19

ARGUMENTS ON BHELAF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the appellant con t ended that the claimant remai n ed admitted in Sw a stik Hospital, Karnal from 20.08.2020 to 08.09.2020; under w ent major neurosur g ical intervention; remained in c oma for a considerable period; o ne portion of skull bone was removed and preserv e d in the abdominal region and w as required to be r e-fixed through a future surge r y. It was argued that despite s u ch grave injuries, t h e Tribunal awarded a meager a mount of ₹60,000/- under all n onpecuniary head s collectively and further awarded inadequate amounts tow a rds attendant charg e s, special diet and future treatm e nt.

¶21

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY.

¶22

4. Pe r contra, learned counsel r e presenting the respondent N o. 3/Insurance C o mpany, neither refuted the fa ctum of accident nor even the negligence of t he offending vehicle, howeve r submitted that in the facts a nd circumstances o f the present case, the com p ensation assessed by the lear n ed Tribunal called f or no interference.

¶23

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

¶24

5. I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pa p erbook of the c a se. I find substance in the ar g uments advanced by the lear n ed counsel for the a ppellant/claimant.

¶25

6. Be f ore determining the quantum o f compensation, it is essentia l to draw guidance f rom the principles laid down in similar cases by the Hon’ble A p ex Court. In “Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.” reported as (2011) 1 SCC 343

¶26

MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt

¶27

3

¶28

FAO NO.2001 OF 2024 (O&M)

¶29

the Court laid d own the heads under which c ompensation is to be awarded for personal injurie s .

¶30

“6. The h eads under which compensat i on is awarded in personal in j ury cases are the following:

¶31

P e cuniary damages (Special dam a ges)

¶32

(i) Expenses relating to trea t ment, hospitalization, medici n es, transportation, nourishi n g food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

¶33

(ii ) Loss of earnings (and oth e r gains) which the injured w o uld have made had he not been i njured, comprising:

¶34

(a ) Loss of earning during the per i od of treatment; (b ) Loss of future earnings on acc o unt of permanent disability. (ii i ) Future medical expenses. N o n-pecuniary damages (General Damages )

¶35

(i v) Damages for pain, sufferin g and trauma as a consequenc e of the injuries.

¶36

(v ) Loss of amenities (and/or lo s s of prospects of marriage). (v i) Loss of expectation of life (s h ortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, c ompensation will be awarded o nly under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). I t is only in serious cases of inj u ry, w h ere there is specific medical e v idence corroborating the evide n ce of the claimant, the compensation w ill granted under any of the heads (ii ) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating t o loss of future earnings on acc o unt of permanent disability, future m edical expenses, loss of amenities (a n d/or loss of prospects of ma r riage) and loss of expectatio n of lif e ”.

¶37

ASSESSMENT UNDER “LOSS OF INCOME”

¶38

7. It i s the case of the appellant/c l aimant that he was employe d at Narendra Emp o rium, Pundri besides running his dairy farm. However, no

¶39

MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt

¶40

4

¶41

FAO NO.2001 OF 2024 (O&M) documentary e v idence was produced on reco r d to prove the same. The lear n ed Tribunal failed t o assess the monthly income o f the appellant in order to deter m ine loss of income s uffered by him during the peri o d of treatment and recovery. E v en in the absence of documentary proof of ear n ings, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the appellant on the bas i s of the minimum wages preva l ent at the relevant t i me, particularly when there wa s no evidence to suggest that he w as unemployed. I n this situation observations m a de by the Hon’ble Apex Cour t in “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.” , reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198, to the effect tha t in the absence of proof of inco m e, the minimum w age notification can be a yards t ick but at the same time canno t be absolute one to fix the income of the deceased and some guesswork is require d to be done to asse s s the income. Relevant excerpt t hereof is reproduced hereunder:-

¶42

“ … ….In the absence of salar y certificate the minimum w a ge no t ification can be a yardstick b u t at the same time cannot be an ab s olute one to fix the income o f the deceased. In the absenc e of do c umentary evidence on recor d some amount of guesswor k is re q uired to be done. But at the sa m e time the guesswork for asses s ing the income of deceased should n o t be totally detached from rea l ity. M e rely because claimants were unable to produce documen t ary evi d ence to show the monthly inco m e of Shivpal, same does not ju s tify ad o ption of lowest tier of minimu m wage while computing the inco m e. Th e re is no reason to discard th e oral evidence of the wife of the de c eased who has deposed that la t e Shivpal was earning around Rs. 15,000/- per month……”

¶43

7.1. In view of the aforesaid discus s ion and also while keeping i nto account the fa c ts and circumstances of the p resent case, this Court is of the considered opi n ion that the notional income o f the appellant/claimant is asse s sed @ Rs. 9,450/- p er month (Rs. 315 per day). N o w, as per the record available the

¶44

MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt

¶45

5

¶46

FAO NO.2001 OF 2024 (O&M)

¶47

appellant remai n ed hospitalized from 20.08.20 2 0 to 08.09.2020 and continue d to undergo treatm e nt thereafter. Thus, the appella n t remained hospitalized for a t o tal period of 20 d a ys, and as such loss of income suffered by him during the s aid period is assess e d as Rs. 6,300/- (Rs. 315 x 20). Further, it is evident that the m o tor vehicular accid e nt occurred on 20.08.2020 a n d the appellant/claimant suff e red serious head in j uries requiring neurosurgical i n tervention. The medical evide n ce on record reve a ls that a portion of his skull bone was surgically removed a nd preserved for s u bsequent re-fixation. Having r e gard to the nature and severit y of the injuries, th e period of hospitalization and t he prolonged recovery necessarily associated wit h such treatment, it would be reasonable to conclude that the appellant remai n ed incapacitated and unable to effectively pursue his vocation for at least 4 months following the accident. Conse q uently, the loss of income suff e red by the appellan t deserves to be assessed for a p e riod of 4 months on account o f his diminished wo r king capacity during the tr e atment and recuperation per i od. Therefore, afte r considering facts and circums t ances of the present case, los s of income for the s aid period is conservatively as s essed @ Rs. 37,800/- (315 x 1 2 0). Further, with re g ard to the claim for compensat i on under the head of ‘loss of fu t ure income’ , in the absence of any cogent evidence establishing permanent disab i lity suffered by the appellant/claimant, no amount is liable to be awarded under the said head.

¶48

ASSESSMENT UNDER “MEDICAL EXPENSES/HOSPITALIZATION”

¶49

8. In t he present case, appellant/clai m ant suffered serious head inju r ies requiring neuro s urgical intervention. The medi c al evidence on record reveals th a t a portion of his s k ull bone was surgically remov e d and preserved for subsequent refixation. Even though the appellant could produce bills amounting to Rs.

¶50

MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt

¶51

6

¶52

FAO NO.2001 OF 2024 (O&M)

¶53

4,14,000/- only but keeping in mind the cost f a ctor prevalent at the time of m o tor vehicular accid e nt and the follow-up treatmen t besides need of medicines du r ing rehabilitation p e riod, the compensation under t h is head needs to be reassessed. T he aforesaid view finds force from the fact that d ue to shock and mental agony on account of acci d ent, a person cannot be presu m ed to be vigilant enough to col l ect all the bills for c laim/reimbursement purposes, t hus, compensation under this head is assessed as R s .7,00,000/-.

¶54

ON THE ASPECT OF PAIN AND SUFFERINGS

¶55

9. Fo r assessing just compensation u n der the head of pain and sufferi n gs, reference may be drawn to the decision of t he Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886, wherein it was held t hat the award of c o mpensation under non-pecuni a ry heads must be reasonable a nd commensurate w ith gravity of the injuries su f fered; the extent of disability; the duration of ho s pitalization, and the mental a n d physical agony endured by the claimant. Relev a nt portion of the same is repro d uced as under:-

¶56

“1 5 . Keeping in view the abov e -referred judgments, the inju r ies su ff ered, the ‘pain and suffering’ c aused, and the life-long natur e of the disability afflicted upon the cl a imant-appellant, and the state m ent of the Doctor as reproduced a b ove, we find the request of the claimant-appellant to be justified a nd as such, award Rs. 15,00,0 0 0/un d er the head ‘pain and suffering’, fully conscious of the fact that the pr a yer of the claimant-appellant f or enhancement of compensa t ion wa s by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, w e find the compensation to be just, fai r and reasonable at the amount s o awarded.”

¶57

9.1 In light of the settled legal po s ition enunciated by the Hon ’ ble Supreme Court in Muralidhar’s case (supra), and having due regard to the

¶58

MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt

¶59

7

¶60

FAO NO.2001 OF 2024 (O&M)

¶61

peculiar facts a nd circumstances of the pre s ent case, it is evident from the documentary e v idence duly proved on record t h at the appellant/claimant sustai n ed serious head in j uries requiring neurosurgical i n tervention. The medical evide n ce on record reve a ls that a portion of his skull bone was surgically removed a nd preserved for s u bsequent re-fixation. Thus, th i s Court is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded under the head of pain and sufferings.

¶62

9.2 Th e medical evidence on rec o rd clearly establishes that the appellant/claim a nt sustained grievous head inju r ies in the motor vehicular accid e nt, necessitating n e urosurgical intervention. The treatment records reveal th a t a portion of his skull bone had to be surgi c ally removed and preserved for subsequent re-f i xation, reflecting the grave nat u re of the trauma suffered by h im. Such injuries w ould not only have caused pr o longed pain, suffering and me n tal agony, but als o resulted in facial disfigurem e nt and an adverse impact on his appearance, sel f -esteem and quality of life. F a cial disfigurement is a perma n ent consequence t h at the claimant is required t o endure throughout his life a nd, therefore, deser v es to be compensated indepen d ently. Considering the severit y of the injuries, the invasive surgical procedures u ndertaken and the lasting effec t of the facial disfig u rement, this Court deems it ju s t and reasonable to award a su m of Rs 2,00,000/- t o wards facial disfigurement.

¶63

ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER ‘PECUNIARY HEADS’

¶64

10. In view of the nature of injuries s u stained by the appellant/claim a nt, particularly serious head injuries requiring neu r osurgical intervention followe d by prolonged post - operative care, it can reason a bly be inferred that he remai n ed confined to bed for a period of about 4 months and would have definitely gone for

¶65

MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt

¶66

8

¶67

FAO NO.2001 OF 2024 (O&M) his post-operat i ve care. However, learned T ribunal failed to grant adeq u ate compensation u nder the head of special diet, conveyance charges and atten d ant charges. There fo re, compensation granted und e r these heads is reassessed @ Rs. 4,00,000/.

¶68

CONCLUSION

¶69

11. In view of what has be e n discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claim a nt shall be entitled for the gra n t of compensation in the follo w ing manner:-

¶70

S.No.	Nat ure	Amount (in Rs.)
1.	Los s of Income (Rs. 6,300+ Rs. 37,8 00)	44,100/-
2.	Med ical Expenses/Hospitalization	7,00,000/-
3.	Com pensation under other pecuniar y head	4,00,000/-
4.	Com pensation under pain and suffer ings	3,00,000/-
5.	Com pensation for facial disfigureme nt	2,00,000/-
	Tot al Compensation	16,44,100/-
	Am ount Awarded by the Tribuna l	5,54,017/-
	Enh anced Compensation	10,90,083/-

¶71

12. Th e grant of interest @ 7% per a nnum is not equitable and jus t in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, reporte d as (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent j udgment titled as “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the interest is enha n ced to 9% per annum on the a m ount of compensation re-assessed from the date o f institution of claim petition t ill its realization. In case the s aid

¶72

MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt

¶73

9

¶74

FAO NO.2001 OF 2024 (O&M)

¶75

amount is not p a id within three months, the sa m e shall be payable thereafter al o ng with 12% inter e st from the expiry of period of three months from today. Need l ess to mention here that the amount of compensati o n already paid to the claimant s h all be deducted fro m the enhanced compensation.

¶76

In view of the aforesaid modi fi cation, the present appeal st a nd disposed of. Pe n ding miscellaneous application ( s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶77

(HARKESH MANUJA) June 02, 2026 JUDGE Atik Wh e ther speaking/reasoned Yes/No Wh e ther reportable Yes/No

¶78

MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt

Sanjiv Kumar v. Krishan Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjiv Kumar v. Krishan Kumar 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ujjaib Ahmad @ Ujji @ Uzaib @ Ujjaib Ahmed Vs State of Haryana

German Deep Singh and Ors. Vs Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gourav Arora Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurdhian Singh Vs State of Punjab