Niranjan Singh Vs Kuldip Singh and Others

Th e present appeal has been p r eferred by the claimant seeking enhancement o f compensation awarded by th e Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh vid e Award dated 19.07.2002, th e challenge being confined to the quantum of co m pensation.

¶15

It is not in dispute that the a p pellant–claimant Niranjan Singh sustained injuries in a motor vehicular acciden t dated 07.07.1999 caused by r a sh and negligent driving of truck No. HR03-6480, driven by respondent No.1, owned by res p ondent No.2, and insured w ith respondent No.3. The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor V ehicles Act was allowed by the Tribunal and c o mpensation of ₹1,00,000/- w a s awarded under various hea d s, including ₹60,0 0 0/- towards permanent disability.

¶16

Se e king enhancement, learned counsel for the claimant h as contended th a t despite continuation of hi s government service after the accident, the claimant suffered permanent disability and, therefo r e, compensation o ught to have been assessed b y applying the multiplier meth o d,

¶17

JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

Page No. 1 of 3

¶19

FAO-4387-2002

¶20

particularly wi t h reference to post-retireme n t earning capacity. Reliance h as been placed u p on the judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Satish Chandra Sharma and another 2022 (2) TAC 6. .

¶21

Le a rned counsel for the Insuranc e Company has opposed the claim for enhancem e nt on the ground that the cl a imant continued in governm e nt service withou t reduction in salary and must b e drawing the same pension postretirement, th e reby ruling out any loss of earning capacity. It has further been submitted tha t recovery rights already gr a nted to the insurer in earlier proceedings m u st be preserved.

¶22

Th e driver and owner, despite ser v ice of notice, have chosen not to appear and we r e proceeded against ex parte.

¶23

U p on appraisal of the record, i t emerges that as per Disability Certificate Ex. 1 1, the claimant sustained a head injury resulting in 5 7 % permanent dis a bility, with no likelihood of improvement. The Tribunal a l so noticed impair m ent of memory attributable to the injury. However, the claim a nt admittedly continued in service without dimi n ution in salary and no evide n ce was produced to establish reduction in pensio n ary benefits post-retirement.

¶24

In t hese circumstances, the Tribu n al rightly refrained from assessing compensation for loss of future earning ca p acity by applying the multipl i er method. It is w e ll settled that physical disabilit y does not automatically transl a te into functional disability affecting earning c apacity, particularly where the claimant conti n ues in the same employme n t with unchanged emoluments. Application of the multiplier method is ju s tified only when the disability demonstrably i m pacts earning capacity.

¶25

Th e reliance placed by learned co u nsel for the claimant upon Satish Chandra Sharma’s case (supra) is misplaced. I n that case, although the claim a nt remained in s e rvice, evidence established lo s s of specific allowances, altered service conditions and deprivation of c e rtain future financial bene f its attributable to the injuries. The Hon’ble Supr e me Court ultimately declined to apply the mul t iplier method and instead gr a nted a lump sum enhancem e nt considering the peculiar facts. JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 2 of 3

¶26

FAO-4387-2002

¶27

Th e present case stands on a si m ilar footing insofar as absence of proof of loss o f income is concerned. Ther e fore, adoption of the multipl i er method, parti c ularly with reference to p o st-retirement earnings, is n ot warranted.

¶28

At the same time, the nature of i n jury and the extent of perman e nt disability cann o t be ignored. The claimant suffered significant head inj u ry resulting in 57 % impairment and cognitive deficit affecting memory. Even wh e re earning capacity remains unaffected, compen s ation must adequately reflect the impact of per m anent disability on quality o f life, discomfort, and long-te r m functional limit a tions.

¶29

Vi e wed from this perspective, the amount of ₹60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal u n der the head of permanent d isability appears inadequate and does not com m ensurate with the extent and n ature of impairment suffered by the claimant.

¶30

Ac c ordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the compensation u nder the head of permanent d isability to ₹2,00,000/-, resulting in an enhance m ent of ₹1,40,000/- over and a b ove the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

¶31

Th e enhanced compensation shall be payable jointly and sever a lly by the respondents. However, in view of the earlier judgment dated 08.07.2010 passed by a Co o rdinate Bench in FAO No. 948 o f 2003 granting recovery rights to the insurer, th e Insurance Company shall rem a in entitled to recover the amo u nt from the insur e d in accordance with law.

¶32

Th e appeal is, thus, partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

¶34

26.02.2026		JUDGE
*Jiten*
Wh ether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Wh ether reportable	: Yes/No

¶35

JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

Page No. 3 of 3

Niranjan Singh v. Kuldip Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Singh v. Kuldip Singh and Others

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

State of Haryana Vs Ram Parshad etc.

Bahadur Singh Vs Gram Panchayat Duman

(O&M) N.I.Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Amarjit Kaur etc.

Kaur Singh Vs Gurmail Singh

Isa Khan Vs Mohar Khan

Jaswinder Kaur Vs Balrajwinder Singh and Others