Dismissed

Vikas Kumar Sood v. Rajan Kumar and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2026FAO/4139/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment condones a 119-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 151 CPC and dismisses the appellant's appeal seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation. The court upheld the Tribunal's assessment of disability and compensation awards.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with 119 days of delay condoned under Section 151 CPC.

Vikas Kumar Sood Vs Rajan Kumar and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

108

¶4

FAO-4139-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision.:02.02.2026

¶5

Vikas Kumar Sood …..Appellant Vs. Rajan Kumar and Others .….Respondents

¶6

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶7

Present:Mr. Digvijay, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

¶8

¶9

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

CM-12631-CII-2022:

¶11

This is an applica"on under Sec"on 151 CPC to condone the delay of 119 days in re-filing the appeal.

¶12

For the reasons men"oned in the applica"on duly supported by affidavit of Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, delay of 119 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶13

Applica"on stands disposed of accordingly.

¶14

Main case.:

¶15

This is a claimant’s appeal seeking enhancement of the compensa"on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide award dated 08.10.2021.

¶16

The appellant-claimant sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 31.08.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing registra"on No. HR-71-1227. He filed a claim pe""on under Sec"on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensa"on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal awarded a total compensa"on of ₹22,95,413/-, payable by respondent No.3, i.e. the insurance company and the insurance company was granted

¶17

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

FAO-4139-2022 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

recovery rights against respondent No.1, driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle.

¶21

The only grievance raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensa"on awarded under the heads of pain and suffering , special diet and a�endant charges is on the lower side and deserves enhancement.

¶22

A perusal of the award reveals that the appellant sustained head injuries. As per the disability cer"ficate on record, he was diagnosed as a case of post-trauma"c brain injury with demen"a. His overall physical/mental impairment was assessed between 40% to 70%, with chances of improvement. Taking into considera"on the nature of the injury and its impact on the earning capacity of the appellant, the Tribunal assessed the func"onal disability at 55%, which cannot be said to be arbitrary or without basis.

¶23

The monthly income of the appellant was assessed at ₹14,800/. A=er adding 40% towards future prospects and applying the mul"plier of 16, keeping in view that the appellant was 31 years of age at the "me of accident, the Tribunal awarded compensa"on of ₹21,88,032/- under the head of loss of future earnings on account of disability. In addi"on thereto, a sum of ₹7,381/- was awarded towards medical expenses on the basis of bills duly proved on record.

¶24

Under the conven"onal heads, the Tribunal awarded ₹50,000/towards pain and suffering, ₹15,000/- towards special diet, ₹25,000/- towards aAendant charges and ₹10,000/- towards transporta"on and miscellaneous expenses.

¶25

It is well seAled that compensa"on under the non-pecuniary heads such as pain and suffering, special diet and aAendant charges is to be assessed on the basis of the nature of injuries, dura"on of treatment and hospitaliza"on, and the evidence led on record.

¶26

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

-3-

¶28

FAO-4139-2022 (O&M)

¶29

In the present case, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out the exact period for which the appellant remained hospitalized or the dura"on of con"nuous treatment requiring special diet or a permanent aAendant. No addi"onal material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the amounts awarded under the aforesaid heads are grossly inadequate or arbitrary.

¶30

The Tribunal has taken a holis"c view of the maAer and has awarded just and reasonable compensa"on under all the heads, par"cularly keeping in view the substan"al amount already granted towards loss of future earnings due to func"onal disability.

¶31

This Court does not find any misapplica"on of legal principles or perversity in the assessment made by the Tribunal warran"ng interference in appellate jurisdic"on. As such, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶32

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

February 02, 2026

¶35

Nee"ka Tuteja

¶36

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶37

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vikas Kumar Sood v. Rajan Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Kumar Sood v. Rajan Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjeet Singh and Ors. Vs Makhan Singh and Ors.

Mewa Devi Vs Raj Bala and Another

Valantir Daynamic LLP Vs Devender Kamal Srivastav and Ors.

Hardial Singh Vs Punjab Roadways,Ludhiana

Manohar Singh and Ors. Vs Dia Singh and Ors.

Prem Singh Vs Lakhan Singh