Dismissed¶32

Munni v. Rajesh and Anr.

MV Act, S.166 – Enhancement of compensation

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Feb 2026FAO/3756/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Munni v. Rajesh and another, FAO-3756-2023 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Nidhi Gupta, J., decided 09.02.2026 — enhancement of motor accident compensation refused; Section 166 MV Act 1988; MACT Charkhi-Dadri Award dated 22.03.2023 in Petition No. 125/31.05.2016; Rs.42,618/- with 9% interest upheld; no proof of permanent disability, income or loss of income (only Ex.P1, 6 days' hospitalization); beneficial legislation not a windfall or source of profit; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No merit was found in the appellant's submissions seeking enhancement of compensation. ¶19

Munni Vs Rajesh and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation of Rs.42,618/- awarded by the learned Tribunal to the injured-claimant appellant was adequate or merited enhancement, including under heads of hospitalization, special diet and pain and suffering, loss of income during treatment, future medical expenses, multiplier and future prospects, and interest. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

No merit was found in the appellant's submissions seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The appellant failed to prove permanent disability — neither a Disability Certificate nor any Medical Officer declaring her permanently disabled was produced — and was unable to prove her injuries, her alleged income or avocation, or any documentary proof of loss of income.

¶24

Key takeaways

The only medical document on record was the Follow-Up and Discharge Card Ex.P1 issued by PGIMS, Rohtak, showing 6 days' hospitalization from 04.12.2015 to 09.12.2015, on the basis of which the Tribunal framed its award.ratio¶24
Although Chapter-12 of the Act is beneficial legislation, adopting the caution of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit; compensation must be just and reasonable.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MV Act, S.166 — Enhancement of compensation — Appeal dismissed. Injured-claimant appellant (Munni) sought enhancement of Rs.42,618/- (plus interest @ 9% p.a., joint and several) awarded by MACT, Charkhi-Dadri vide Award dated 22.03.2023 in MACT Petition No. 125/31.05.2016, for injuries suffered in an accident of 04.12.2015 caused by rash and negligent driving of Alto Car HR-19D-0605 (driven and owned by respondent No.1, insured by respondent No.2). Award heads: medicines/hospital bills Rs.5,618/-; 6 days' hospitalization/transportation/attendant charges Rs.15,000/-; special diet, pain and suffering and all other heads Rs.22,000/-. Held: despite pleading age 45, income of Rs.30,000 p.m. and multiple injuries including fracture of left fibula, the appellant produced no Disability Certificate or Medical Officer to prove permanent disability, and failed to prove her injuries, income/avocation or documentary loss of income; only Ex.P1 (Follow-Up and Discharge Card, PGIMS Rohtak) showing 6 days' hospitalization (04.12.2015–09.12.2015) was on record. Chapter-12 of the Act, though beneficial legislation, cannot be treated as a windfall or source of profit — compensation must be just and reasonable, neither bonanza nor pittance (State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, Law Finder Doc ID # 64043; Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. v. Mahadeva She)y, (2003) 7 SCC 197 — relied on). Award found just and fair; no error found; appeal dismissed; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta, J.; decided 09.02.2026.)

¶1

FAO-3756-2023 (O&M) - 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

126 FAO-3756-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.02.2026

Munni

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Rajesh and another

¶8

...Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶10

Present:Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

¶12

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶13

The present appeal has been (led by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensa0on of Rs.42,618/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Charkhi-Dadri (for short “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 22.03.2023 passed in MACT Pe00on No. 125 dated 31.05.2016 (led under Sec0on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced by the par0es concluded that the appellant had su=ered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 04.12.2015 at about 04:15 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of an Alto Car bearing registra0on No. HR-19D-0605 (hereina?er referred to as “the o=ending vehicle”) being driven and owned by respondent No.1; and insured by respondent No.2. The above said compensa0on was awarded along with

¶15

DIVYANSHI 2026.02.10 19:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

FAO-3756-2023 (O&M) - 2 -

¶17

interest @ 9% per annum. All the respondents were jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensa0on.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensa0on by submiDng that learned Tribunal had awarded meager amount of compensa0on by ignoring that in the accident in ques0on, appellant had su=ered mul0ple injuries including fracture of leg. In this regard, learned Tribunal has ignored the evidence on record and awarded less amount of compensa0on for medicines and hospital bills. AdmiGedly, appellant had remained hospitalized for more than 6 days, but the learned Tribunal had awarded very less amount of compensa0on under the head of special diet and pain and su=erings and the same is liable to be enhanced to the tune of Rs.10 lacs as per the evidence on record. Learned Tribunal had not applied mul0plier and future prospects to the loss of income. Nothing has been awarded for future medical expenses and treatment. Learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.50 lacs under the said heads. Nothing has been awarded for loss of income during treatment. Interest @ 9% per annum is on the lower side and it should be 18%. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the compensa0on be enhanced in above terms.

¶19

No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case (le in detail. I (nd no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

¶20

It was the own pleaded case of the appellant that at the 0me of accident, appellant was 45 years old and used to do household work and

¶21

DIVYANSHI 2026.02.10 19:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

FAO-3756-2023 (O&M) - 3 -

¶23

was also making equipment of agriculture and was earning Rs.30,000/p.m. The appellant has further pleaded that in the accident in ques0on, she has su=ered su=ered severe & mul0ple injuries over her body including fracture of le? (bula, B/L knee, leg ankle and right full skull. On account of le? leg fracture, she is unable to sit & walk swi?ly and has become permanently disabled and has to get assistance of an aGendant for performing her daily pursuits. Now, she has become permanently disabled, and her future income has been decreased to a great extent.

¶24

However, despite the above far-fetched claims made by the appellant, no medical evidence was brought on record to show that appellant had su=ered any permanent disability. It has been admiGed by learned counsel for the appellant that neither Disability Cer0(cate, nor any Medical OJcer who had declared the appellant to be permanently disabled, was produced by the appellant. Appellant was unable to prove either her injuries; or even her alleged income or avoca0on. Appellant had also failed to show any documentary proof regarding alleged loss of income. Appellant had only brought on record Follow-Up and Discharge Card Ex.P1 issued by PGIMS, Rohtak, as per which appellant had remained hospitalized for 6 days from 04.12.2015 to 09.12.2015. Ld. Tribunal had

¶25

accordingly awarded compensa0on in the following manner:-

¶26

Sr.	Par7cular of Heads	Amount
No.
1.	Bills for purchase of medicines	Rs.5,618/-
	and hospital bills etc. (Mark-A3 to Mark-A7)
2.	06-Days Hospitaliza0on /	Rs.15,000/-
	Transporta0on and AGendant

¶27

DIVYANSHI 2026.02.10 19:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

FAO-3756-2023 (O&M) - 4 -

¶29

	charges
3.	Special diet, pain and su=erings	Rs.22,000/-
	and all other heads
	Total amount of Compensa7on	Rs.42,618/-

¶30

From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensa0on has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensa0on granted to the appellant. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a bene(cial legisla0on yet, as cau0oned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of pro(t. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur” Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and “Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva She)y and another” (2003) 7 SCC 197 , has held that the amount of compensa0on should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of pro(t but at the same 0me it should not be a piGance.

¶31