Gurcharan Singh Vs Surjit Singh etc.

Present appeal has been preferred by appellant-claimant who is dissatisfied with award of compensation of Rs.25,000/- vide award dated dated 12.01.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District Judge, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tribunal ’) on account of injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident dated 07.09.1999 caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. HP-24-5680 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ offending vehicle ’) by respondent No.1.

¶14

Learned counsel for appellant-claimant asserted that on account of accident, appellant-claimant had suffered multiple injuries including fracture on right leg due to which appellant-claimant had become permanenly disabled. It was also claimed that appellant-claimant had spent Rs.50,000/- on his treatment and had sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/along with interest @ 18 %.

¶15

Learned Tribunal after considering respective contentions and evidence led by parties concluded that injured-appellant-claimant had

¶16

SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.09 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

FAO-2684-2002 (O&M) -2-

¶18

suffered injuries in accident dated 07.09.1999, which was caused by respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle.

¶19

Since the finding of negligence on the part of respondent No.1 is not being challenged by respondents either by way of appeal or by way of cross-objections, the detailed facts regarding manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity.

¶20

The only issue raised in present appeal is as regards to quantum of compensation. It is the case of appellant-claimant that though appellantclaimant had spent Rs.50,000/- on medical expenses and had suffered disability to the extent of 32% with regard to the movement of right leg as was mentioned vide disability certificate (Ex.A2), however was granted compensation of Rs.25,000/- only by learned Tribunal, which is insufficient. In present case, appellant-claimant in order to prove the loss suffered by him has placed reliance upon his own oral assertions made while appearing as PW1. Reliance has been placed upon treatment expenditure of Rs.31,540/issued by Dr. Satpal on the basis of treatment slip. However, the said treatment slip as well as bill was rejected by learned Tribunal on the ground that appellants-claimant in claim petition has not claimed that he got his treatment from Dr. Satpal nor was Dr. Satpal examined to prove treatment bills as well as nature of injuries suffered by appellant-claimant on account of accident. Similarly, Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 regarding treatment was also not relied upon by learned Tribunal as doctor had not stepped into witness box. Once learned Tribunal has concluded that appellant-claimant had suffered injuries on account of accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, it ought to have appreciated evidence regarding medical

¶21

SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.09 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

FAO-2684-2002 (O&M) -3-

¶23

treatment as well as expenditure incurred on the standard of preponderance of probability. From the statement of appellant-claimant-PW1 as well as treatment records Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 and bill amounting to Rs.31,540/-, it is clearly made out that appellant-claimant had suffered grievous injury. Appellant-claimant, therefore, is entitled to amount of Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses, special diet, attendant and transportation charges. Since, appellant-claimant had undergone immense pain and sufferings for the injuries suffered by him, compensation of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the head pain and sufferings. keeping in view grievous injuries. Appellantclaimant must have remained out of job for at least three months and accordingly, appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.6,000/(Rs.2,000X3) by taking his monthly salary as Rs.2,000/- payable to daily wager in absence of any cogent proof regarding vocation and earning of the injured-appellant-claimant.

¶24

However, this Court does not find any error in the approach of learned Tribunal in not taking into consideration disability certificate (Ex.A2) to conclude permanent disability suffered by injured-appellantclaimant on account of accident. In present case, the issuing doctor or official from hospital to prove due issuance of disability certificate has not examined by appellant-claimant, therefore, mere exhibition of disability certificate cannot be taken to be proof of disability as being treated by appellant-claimant. This view is supported by judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Rajesh Kumar Vs. Yudhvir Singh and Another , 2008(7) SCC 305, wherein it was held as under:-

¶25

“9. The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to

¶26

SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.09 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

FAO-2684-2002 (O&M)

¶28

-4-

¶29

whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not known. It is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. It even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence of any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time. ”

¶30

Similar finding was recorded by Hon’ble Madras High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A.P. Prasanna Venkatesh and Anr. , 2009 (3) LW 538 and by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Tata AIG General Insurance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sunil Ishwarbhai Panchal and Ors. , Special Civil Application No.3605 of 2025 decided on 03.03.2026.

¶31

In view of pronouncement by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Tribunal has rightly not considered disability certificate. Accordingly, no compensation for loss of dependency or for future prospects can be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶32

SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.09 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

FAO-2684-2002 (O&M)

¶34

-5-

¶35

Accordingly, reworked compensation payable to appellant-

¶36

claimant is as under :-

¶37

Medical expenses, special diet, attendant and transportation charges		Rs.40,000/-
Pain and sufferings		Rs.40,000/-
Loss of income	Rs.2,000X3	Rs.6,000/-
duringtreatment
Total compensation awarded byTribunal	Rs.25,000/-
Total Compensation awarded in appeal		Rs.86,000/-
Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs.86,000/- (awarded in appeal) - Rs.61,000/- (awarded by Tribunal)	Rs.25,000/-

¶38

Appellants-claimant shall be entitled to enhanced compensation

¶39

along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Liability to pay compensation shall be as per award.

¶40