Kuldeep Kaur Vs Gobind Singh and Ors.

This appeal has been instituted by claimant against the Award dated 03.05.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Rupnagar ( for short “Tribunal” ) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.9 of 24.01.2000 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant along with interest @ 9% per annum on account of injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 20.12.1999, due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, while driving offending vehicle bearing No.99D 115990 x (for short ‘offending vehicle’) , which was owned by respondent No.2.

¶14

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.17 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

FAO-3769-2002(O&M) - 2 -

¶16

From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

¶17

“1) Whether Kuldip Kaur has received injuries and Bajaj Chetak Scooter No.PB-39A-5854 was damaged in accident dated 20.12.1999 caused by respondent No.1 while driving vehicle No.99D 115990 x rashly and negligently? OPP.

¶18

2) To what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled to recover? If so, from whom? OPP.

¶19

3) Is the petition not maintainable? OPR.

¶20

4) Relief.”

¶21

Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

¶22

After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by her along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

¶23

Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

¶24

The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving offending vehicle bearing No. 99D 115990 x , which was owned by respondent No.2. No appeal or

¶25

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.17 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

FAO-3769-2002(O&M) - 3 -

¶27

cross-objections have been filed by the respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly, finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The claimant had suffered 70% permanent disability and she has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for disability, pain and suffering, mental agony, medical expenses and future loss etc. Learned counsel next contended that despite amputation of her leg, no compensation has been awarded for purchasing an artificial limb. The claimant was 24 years of age in December, 1999 when the accident took place and she is entitled to compensation for purchase of artificial limb. Learned counsel further contended that now prosthetic limbs have come in the market which are more comfortable but the same are costly and the claimant should be compensated for purchasing prosthetic leg, which also requires regular maintenance. Learned counsel further argued that adequate compensation has not been awarded under pecuniary and nonpecuniary heads and same is liable to be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others , 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1017 Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport

¶29

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.17 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

FAO-3769-2002(O&M) - 4 -

¶31

Corporation and RCR (Civil) 711 Prahlad Sahai Vs. Haryana Roadways and another.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for.

¶33

The law is well settled that the compensation to be awarded for injuries suffered by victim in a motor vehicular accident should be just and equitable. Courts have consistently held that while money cannot erase the pain, suffering, or trauma but it is the only legal means to provide restitution and restore the victim to his previous position as far as possible for which ‘just compensation’ has to be assessed. It is also well settled that while it is impossible to fully compensate for the loss of limb, life, or quality of life, the compensation must be ‘Just’, meaning thereby, that it should be fair, reasonable, and equitable based on the evidence and not merely a ‘Windfall’ or a ‘Pittance’. The core objective is to put the injured/victim in the same position he would have been if the accident had not taken place, to the extent money can do so. This approach ensures that the law provides a realistic recompense for the trauma endured, rather than just providing normal relief.

¶34

Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 934 - G.Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and another , has held that in a case of accident resulting in injuries to the victim, the compensation in personal injury cases should be determined under the

¶35

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.17 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

FAO-3769-2002(O&M) - 5 -

¶37

following heads:-

¶38

Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

¶39

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing expenditure, food and miscellaneous

¶40

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

¶41

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

¶42

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent

¶43

disability

¶44

(iii) Future medical expenses.

¶45

Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)

¶46

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

¶47

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

¶48

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal

¶49

longevity).

¶50

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv) It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.

¶51

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.17 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

FAO-3769-2002(O&M) - 6 -

¶53

Claimant while appearing as PW-1 deposed that she had suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question resulting in fracture in her right leg. She remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh for 15 days where her right leg was amputated. She had spent Rs.1,00,000/- on her treatment. Earlier, she used to work as private teacher and earn Rs.15,000/- per month and after the accident, she was unable to do any work. The claimant has also led in evidence the disability certificate as Ex.P1, according to which, she has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70%. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the material on file awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the claimant on account of disability, pain and suffering, mental agony, medical expenses and future loss etc.

¶54

However, in my considered opinion, the compensation awarded to the claimant is grossly inadequate. The claimant had suffered fracture in her right leg and her right leg was amputated. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and such injuries take a long time to heal. I t must have taken at least six months for the injuries to heal and taking into consideration the severity of injuries, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’ .

¶55

From the evidence on file, it is established that claimant was 24 years of age and she had suffered fracture in her right leg which was ultimately amputated, resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 70%. The claimant stated that she was working as Private teacher and in

¶56

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.17 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶57

FAO-3769-2002(O&M) - 7 -

¶58

addition to this, she has to be treated as home maker as well. No c ogent and convincing evidence has been led to establish the monthly income of the claimant yet some amount of guesswork has to be applied while assessing the monthly income. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC

¶59

198, Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav , decided vide judgment dated 01.10.2021 has held that merely because claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased is not a ground to discard the oral evidence and in such cases, the Court is required to ensure just compensation based on preponderance of probabilities. Minimum wage notification may serve as a yardstick but cannot be the sole basis for assessing the income. Moreover, it is also well settled that where the victim/deceased belongs to unorganized sector, strict proof of income is not mandatory and notional income can be reasonably assessed based on the social status and facts and circumstances of the case. As such, some amount of guess work has to be applied while assessing the income. The claimant was working as private teacher and was a homemaker as well and her monthly income is assessed as Rs.4,000/- per month.

¶60

As per disability certificate Ex.P1, c laimant has suffered 70% permanent disability in relation to her right leg which will certainly diminish her earning capabilities and the avocation or profession she will pursue. The compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ thus has to be assessed keeping in view the percentage by which her earning capability has been diminished and by applying a suitable multiplier in view of law

¶61

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.17 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶62

FAO-3769-2002(O&M) - 8 -

¶63

laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010(4) PLR 242 Yadava Kumar Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited .

¶64

Claimant was 24 years of age on the date of accident. Accordingly, 40% of amount has to be added to her monthly income towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Sanjay Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and after adding the same, her monthly income comes out to Rs.5,600/- per month (Rs.4,000/- + Rs.1,600/-) .

¶65

Claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70% and the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.3,920/(Rs.5600/- X 70%) and ‘ annual loss of income ’ will come out to Rs.47,040/- per annum (i.e. Rs.3,920/- X 12) .

¶66

As per the claim petition, claimant was 24 years of age and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the multiplier of 18 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.8,46,720/- (Rs.47,040/- X 18) on account of ‘ loss of income ’ due to permanent disability.

¶67

It must have taken at least six months for the injuries to heal and during this period, claimant would not have been able to do any job and must have suffered loss of income and she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.24,000/- on account of ‘ loss of income during the period of treatment’

¶68

During this period, she must have spent some amount in

¶69

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.17 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶70

FAO-3769-2002(O&M) - 9 -

¶71

engaging an attendant and she will require an attendant even in future. She is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.

¶72

During this period, she must have spent some amount on transportation and special diet and she is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- under these heads.

¶73

Claimant was 24 years of age and this disability in her right leg is going to remain with her throughout her life. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of ‘ loss of amenities ’.

¶74

The accident had taken place in the December, 1999. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for purchasing an artificial limb and the claimant must have purchased the same for her day to day requirements and movement and accordingly, she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing artificial limb. However, now with the advancement of technology, prosthetic limbs have come in the market which are more comfortable and Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments has held that the victims who have suffered amputation should be granted compensation for purchase of prosthetic limb.

¶75

Regarding purchase and maintenance of prosthetic leg/limb, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain’s case (supra) has held as under:-

¶76

“COMPENSATION FOR THE PURCHASE AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROSTHETIC LEG

¶77

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.17 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶78

FAO-3769-2002(O&M) - 10 -

¶79

The High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,20,000/- for the prosthetic limb and Rs.50,000/- towards repair and maintenance of the same. The Appellant submits that the cost of the prosthetic limb itself is Rs. 2,60,000/- and the life of the prosthetic limb is only 5-6 years. The prosthetic limb also requires repair and maintenance after every 6 months to 1 year, and each repair costs between Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000/-. This would mean that the prosthetic limb would last the Appellant for only 15 years under the current compensation. The Appellant at the time of the accident was aged 37 years and has a full life ahead. It has been clearly stated by this Court in the case of Anant Son of Sidheshwar Dukre (Supra) that the purpose of fair compensation is to restore the injured to the position he was in prior to the accident as best as possible. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is being extracted herein:

¶80

“In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The Claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life and enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries.”

¶81

“The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position prior to the accident.” 23. As per the current compensation given for the

¶82

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.17 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶83

FAO-3769-2002(O&M) - 11 -

¶84

prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15 years, even if we were to assume that the limb would not need to be replaced after a few years. The Appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the opinion that the Appellant must be compensated so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age. For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs.5,00,000/-.”

¶85

While relying upon Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain’s case (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prahlad Sahai’ case (supra) has held that prosthetic limb has a replacement cycle of five years which needs annual maintenance as well and besides the price of the prosthetic limb, the claimant is also entitled to amount required for his periodic maintenance and a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- was awarded for purchasing prosthetic limb five times and Rs.75,000/- as maintenance for a period of five years each and total amount awarded to claimant in Prahlad Sahai’s case (supra) for purchasing and maintenance of prosthetic limbs was Rs.26,00,000/-. In the present case, claimant was 24 years of age at the time of accident which took place in December 1999. No evidence has been led to prove that the claimant had

¶86

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.17 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶87

FAO-3769-2002(O&M) - 12 -

¶88

purchased prosthetic limb and now she is 50 years of age and taking into consideration the fact that the life span is around 70 years, she will require at least four prosthetic limbs in future and accordingly, she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for purchase of prosthetic limbs and their maintenance.

¶89

Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is assessed as under:-

¶90

Sr. No.	Head	₹ This Court ( )
1.	Loss of future income due to permanent disability	Rs.8,46,720/-
2.	Pain & sufferings	Rs.50,000/-
3.	Transportation and special diet	Rs.25,000/-
4.	Attendant charges	Rs.1,00,000/-
5.	Loss of income during the period of treatment	Rs.24,000/-
6.	Loss of amenities	Rs.50,000/-
7.	Purchase of Artificial leg	Rs.50,000/-
8.	Purchase of prosthetic limbs and their maintenance	Rs.20,00,000/-
	Total	Rs.31,45,720/- /- (rounded off to Rs.31,46,000/-)

¶91

Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellant/claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.31,46,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.29,96,000/- (Rs.31,46,000/- - Rs.1,50,000/-) over and above the

¶92

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.17 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶93

FAO-3769-2002(O&M) - 13 -

¶94

compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.20,00,000/awarded for purchasing a prosthetic limbs and their maintenance from the date of judgment passed by this Court till realization and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the remaining amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 24.01.2000 till realization.

¶95

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶96

disposed of.

¶97

(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 14.07.2026 Priyanka Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶98

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.17 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kuldeep Kaur v. Gobind Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Kaur v. Gobind Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monica and Ors. Vs Vijay Lal and Ors.

Gurpreet Vs Makhan Lal

Satnam Kaur Vs Surinder Singh

Kulvinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Kulwant Singh and Ors.

Gurmit Kaur etc. Vs Amlok Singh etc.

(O&M) Mohammad Sadique Vs Gagan Jindal and Others