Injured claimant appealed seeking enhancement of Rs.3,43,850 awarded by the MACT Panipat for a 2014 road accident. The High Court found no evidence of income or disability proof and noted the driver's acquittal in the criminal case, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FAO-2560-2019 Page 1 of 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 261-I
FAO-2560-2019(O&M) Date of decision: 17.03.2026
Smt. Kumud Gupta Sanjay & Others
Vs.
...Appellant(s)
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Mr. Parmod Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate Mr. PHS Pannu, Advocate for respondent No.3.
NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-8381-CII-2019
This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with
Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the appeal.
After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the appellant, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 12 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
MAIN CASE
Present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.3,43,850/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 26.11.2018 passed in Claim Petition RBT No.181 of 2016 filed
SUNENA 2026.03.20 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-2560-2019 Page 2 of 6
under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter “the Act”).
SUNENA 2026.03.20 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-2560-2019 Page 3 of 6
awarded only Rs.2,63,650/- towards medical treatment. Meagre amount
has been awarded for attendant, transportation charges, diet, etc. Interest should have been awarded @ 12%.
be dismissed.
of the appellant before the learned Tribunal that prior to the accident, she was giving tuitions and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. However, no evidence whatsoever in this regard has been produced by the appellant to prove the above-said assertion. In the absence of any evidence brought by the appellant, her income has been correctly assessed as ₹5000/– per month.
SUNENA 2026.03.20 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-2560-2019 Page 4 of 6
injuries on her legs. As per the Disability Certificate (Ex.P60), the appellant had suffered 15% permanent disability for which learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- (@ Rs.2000/- per percent of disability). Admittedly, the appellant has not examined any doctor to prove the above-said injuries or disability. Accordingly, no error can be found in the amount of Rs.30,000/awarded by the learned Tribunal towards permanent disability; or Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering as the alleged injuries suffered by the appellant have not been proved as per law.
of income, and awarded compensation in the following manner: -
| Head | Amount |
|---|---|
| Medical expenses | Rs.2,63,850/- |
| Pain and suffering | Rs.15,000/- |
SUNENA 2026.03.20 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-2560-2019 Page 5 of 6
| Loss of income | Rs.15,000/- |
|---|---|
| Nutrition diet, attendant charges | Rs.20,000/- |
| and transportation charges | |
| 15%permanent disability | Rs.30,000/- |
| Total | **Rs.3,43,850/- ** |
279, 337 and 338 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Panipat, on the basis of statement made by Deepak. In the said FIR, respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panipat vide judgment dated 05.01.2019, for the following reasons:-
“14. Turning to the facts of the case in hand, the pivotal point for determination of the guilt of the accused is whether the injuries suffered by the complainant are a result of rash and negligent act of the accused. Perusal of the testimonies and record file nowhere reflects that the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with complete disregard to the safety of others. Neither the injured nor the complainant have been examined by the prosecution. On 27.10.2017, complainant Deepak and victims namely Sandeep and Kumud had appeared and suffered a joint statement that they shall appear on the next date along with Ankit and Suresh for evidence. However, they did not appear thereafter despite sufficient knowledge. Merely stating that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in the complaint is not sufficient unless it is
SUNENA 2026.03.20 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
FAO-2560-2019 Page 6 of 6
proven that the vehicle was being driven in a manner with utter disregard to the safety of others. No such evidence is available on record. The other witnesses are merely formal in nature and in no manner prove the facts of occurrence and guilt of the accused. The aforesaid paucity of evidence casts a doubt on the case of prosecution. Hence, it is unclear that whether the said vehicle was driven by accused and if so, was it driven in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by examination of injured/eye witnesses and has also not been able to establish rash and negligent act, if any, on the part of the accused standing trial.”
support her case before the learned JMIC, as a result of which respondent no.1 has been acquitted. Clearly, therefore, appellant has put up a different
case before the Tribunal, and a contrary case before the JMIC.
17.03.2026 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
SUNENA 2026.03.20 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for injuries and 15% permanent disability warranted enhancement.
Whether the appellant's income could be assessed at Rs.25,000 per month without evidence.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Smt. Kumud Gupta
Sanjay
Respondents (Others)
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
