(O&M) National Insurance Company Vs Sukhbir Singh and Ors.

Prayer in this application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC is for bringing on record the legal representatives of appellant-Sukhbir Singh.

¶24

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and legal representatives of appellant namely Sukhbir Singh (since deceased) are ordered to be impleaded as appellants in the present appeal, subject to all just exceptions. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

¶25

Application stands disposed of.

¶26

CM-11554-CII-2019 in FAO-451-2003

¶27

The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1544 days in filing the appeal.

¶28

In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 1544 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶29

Application stands disposed of.

¶30

CM-11555-CII-2019 in FAO-451-2003

¶31

The present application under Order VIII Rule 9 has been filed for recalling the order dated 19.03.2014, vide which appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶32

8 . In view of the contents of the application, the same is allowed and order dated 19.03.2014 is recalled. The appeal in hand is restored to its original number and taken on board today itself.

¶33

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

FAO-859-2003 (O&M) FAO-451-2003 (O&M) -3-

¶35

Main cases

¶36

The aforesaid appeals have been instituted against the Award dated 18.11.2002 passed by MACT, Chandigarh ( for short “Tribunal” ) in MACT Case No.150 of 08.11.2000 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.7,30,000/- has been awarded as compensation to claimant-Sukhbir Singh along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 11.10.2000, due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, while driving offending vehicle bearing No.PB-11-B-8885 (for short ‘offending vehicle’) , owned by respondents No.2 and 3, which was insured with respondent No.4.

¶37

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

¶38

“1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries on his person in a road side accident which took place on 11.10.2000 on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No.PB-11-B-8885 by respondent No.1 as alleged?OPP

¶39

2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the claimant is entitled to any amount as compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPR

¶40

3. Whether the respondent no.1 was without a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident, if so, to what effect? OPR-4.

¶41

4. Relief.”

¶42

Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 12. After hearing the parties and going through the material on

¶43

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

FAO-859-2003 (O&M) FAO-451-2003 (O&M) -4-

¶45

the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,30,000/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 4 jointly and severally. Under issue No.3, it has been held that respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and Insurance Company may initiate proceedings for recovery of the amount from respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. driver and owners respectively. However, in the relief clause, no such order has been passed that Insurance Company is entitled to recover the same.

¶46

Feeling aggrieved, appeal No.FAO-859-2003 has been instituted by the claimant-Sukhbir Singh and appeal No.FAO-451-2003 has been instituted by the Insurance Company. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

¶47

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. PB-11-B-8885, which was owned by respondents No.2 and 3 and insured with respondent No.4. No appeal or 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.

¶48

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

FAO-859-2003 (O&M) FAO-451-2003 (O&M) -5-

¶50

Learned counsel for the appellant-Sukhbir Singh 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 80% permanent disability and he has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- for permanent disability, expenses incurred on treatment, medicines, transportation, engaging an attendant, pain and sufferings and special diet. Learned counsel further argued that adequate compensation has not been awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads and same is liable to be 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 and 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others .

¶51

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.

¶52

As per version of claimant, he was serving in Indian Army and was 35 years of age. He suffered serious injuries in the accident and his one leg was amputated and second leg was also badly fractured and even the bones were visible and doctor had opined that the second leg may also have to be amputated in future in case the infection does not get cured. The accident had taken place on 11.10.2000 and he was discharged

¶53

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶54

FAO-859-2003 (O&M) FAO-451-2003 (O&M) -6-

¶55

from service on 06.03.2002 due to disability and during this period, he remained under treatment at PGI, Chandigarh, Command Hospital Chandimandir and Artificial Limb Centre Pune. His salary was Rs.6047/per month and since he has been discharged from service, he has suffered total loss of income. He had also spent huge amount on transportation, special diet and in engaging an attendant and infact, he will require an attendant throughout his life.

¶56

The Tribunal after going through the evidence on file in para No.9 onwards with regard to nature of injuries and treatment undergone by him held as under:-

¶57

“9. The claimant sustained miltiple Injuries on his body. On the basis of documentary and oral evidence on the file, it can be safely held that the left leg of the claimant is amputated above knee and operation has to be conducted twice or thrice. The right leg is also badly injured. Till now there is pus and bleeding with time gap in the right leg. At this stage it can not be held as to whether the recovery or injuries on right leg are possible or not. However, the learned counsel for the claimant stated that doctors have said that this leg also may be got amputated if infection could not be removed. Sukhbir Singh when appeared in the witness box has stated that his left leg was crushed and fractured and on the right leg the entire skin alongwith flesh was removed and bones were visible. He stated that he remained admitted in PG1 from 11.10.2000 to 25.10.2000 and his left leg was amputated after eight hours long operation and ten stitches were given due to head injuries. One pipe was inserted from below the left side chest for draining the blood and another pipe was inserted for the passage of urine. The grafting has been, done four times on his right leg by removing flesh from thigh. Grafting has been done four times on his right leg just to save it from amputation but the right leg is not worth for doing any work. On the basis of documents i.e. reports and certificates and statement of PW3 the findings are given that

¶58

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶59

FAO-859-2003 (O&M) FAO-451-2003 (O&M)

¶60

-7-

¶61

the claimant remained admitted in PGI from 11.10.2000 to 25.10.2000. He remained admitted in Command Hospital, Chandimandir from 26.10.2000 upto 2.3.2001. From 03.03.2001 he remained admitted in Artificial Limb Centre, Pune. During this period artificial Leg was fitted, given training to walk. He remained on medical leave upto 8.8.2001 and thereafter again he remained admitted in Hospital from 9.8.2001 to 30.8.2001. After 30.8.2001 also the claimant spending amount for follow up treatment. It is evident from the photostat copy of discharge book Ex. P10 that claimant has been discharged from army service with effect from 6.3.2002. There is oral as well as documentary evidence on the file that no pension or service benefit of any type has been given to the claimant by army authorities because the accident took place when he was not doing the official duty. Εx.Ρ1 to Ex.P3 are discharge slips and certificate of Artificial Limb Centre, Pune. Ex.P4 certificate shows that permanent disability of the claimant is 80%. Keeping in view the circumstances narrated above, it clearly appears that multiple serious and grievous injuries have been suffered by the claimant. He is left with no charm in his future life. His left leg has been got amputated above knee and possibility of amputation of right leg also can not be relied out in near future. The claimant has been discharged from army service on the ground of disability and he is not given even pensionary benefits as he was not doing any official duties when injuries were sustained by him. In these circumstances, claimant certainly deserves sympathy of all concerned. His life certainly has become miserable. His family consists of wife, father, mother two minor daughters and minor son.”

¶62

As such, the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on file

¶63

came to the conclusion that left leg of the claimant was amputated above knee and he had undergone two-three surgeries and right leg was also badly injured. It was further held that he had suffered 80% disability as per certificate Ex.P4 and he has been discharged from army service on the ground of disability on 06.03.2002 and no pensionary benefits have

¶64

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶65

FAO-859-2003 (O&M) FAO-451-2003 (O&M) -8-

¶66

been given to him. The Tribunal after assessing his monthly income to be Rs.6,047/- per month as per salary certificate Ex.P5 produced by the Army authorities awarded him compensation for loss of income on account of permanent disability by taking into consideration the 80% disability suffered by him. However, in my considered opinion, claimant has been discharged from service on account of permanent disability and he has suffered total loss of income and as such, his disability for the purpose of loss of income should be assessed as 100% and not 80% as assessed by the Tribunal. Admittedly, claimant received salary up to 06.03.2002 when he was discharged from service and as such, he is not entitled to compensation on account of loss of income till the date of discharge and even the Tribunal has deducted the amount of salary paid to him from the date of accident till the date of discharge from service. The compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ thus has to be assessed keeping in view the percentage by which his earning capability has been diminished and by applying a suitable multiplier in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010(4) PLR 242 Yadava Kumar Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited .

¶67

The Tribunal has held that the claimant was between 35 to 40 years of age whereas claimant had stated that he was 35 years of age on the date of accident. Claimant was in permanent Government employment and as such, 50% of amount has to be added to his 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

¶68

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶69

FAO-859-2003 (O&M) FAO-451-2003 (O&M) -9-

¶70

adding the same, his monthly income comes out to Rs.9,071/- per month (Rs.6,047/- + Rs.3,024/-) .

¶71

Claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 100% and the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.9,071/(Rs.9,071/- X 100%) and ‘ annual loss of income ’ will come out to Rs.1,08,852/- per annum (i.e. Rs.9,071/- X 12) .

¶72

As per the claim petition, claimant was 35 to 40 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 15 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.16,32,780/- (1,08,852/- X 15) on account of ‘ loss of income ’ due to permanent disability. However, from the date of accident till he was discharged from service, he received a sum of Rs.1,02,800/- as salary which shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount and after deducting the same, the loss of income due to permanent disability comes out to Rs.15,29,980/- (Rs.16,32,780/- - Rs.1,02,800/-).

¶73

Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings, which is grossly inadequate. His left leg was amputated and he remained under treatment for 11 months and the second leg was also badly fractured. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and such injuries take a long time to heal. It must have taken at least two years for the injuries to heal and taking into consideration the severity of injuries, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’ .

¶74

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶75

FAO-859-2003 (O&M) FAO-451-2003 (O&M) -10-

¶76

No amount has been awarded towards loss of amenities despite the fact that the claimant has lost his leg and accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of ‘ loss of amenities ’.

¶77

Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for an expenses incurred on treatment. It is not in dispute that the treatment in Army Hospital and Artificial Limb Centre, Pune was free of cost. A sum of Rs.17,493/- has spent in PGI on medical examination. However, he will certainly require some more amount for his future treatment and in all, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- for the amount spent on treatment and future treatment.

¶78

Claimant has also been awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for special diet and a sum of Rs.6,185/- for transportation, which too is adequate.

¶79

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for engaging an attendant. It has been observed that one constable was deputed to take care of him while he was admitted in the Army hospital. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the claimant has suffered amputation of one leg and the second leg was also badly crushed and the claimant will thus require an attendant to look after him throughout his life. Learned counsel for appellant has stated that the claimant has died on 28.08.2009 and as such, he must have engaged an attendant for at least six years after he was discharged from his service. He is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for “engaging an attendant”.

¶80

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶81

FAO-859-2003 (O&M) FAO-451-2003 (O&M) -11-

¶82

It is also in dispute that the claimant was got admitted at Artificial Limb Centre, Pune by the Army where artificial limbs were provided free of cost at the expenses of the army and as such, claimant is not entitled to any amount of compensation for purchasing an artificial limb.

¶83

The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has come to the conclusion that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and under issue No.3, it has been held that respondent No.4-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant but Insurance Company can initiate the proceedings for recovery of the amount from respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. driver and owners respectively. However, in the relief clause, no such order has been passed that the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the same. Since, there is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, it is ordered that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation amount to the claimant but it shall have a right to recover the same from the owners/ insured i.e. respondents No.2 and 3 along with interest @ 6% from the date of deposit till realisation without filing a separate suit.

¶84

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

¶85

Sr. No.	Head	This Court (₹)
1.	Loss of future income due to	Rs.15,29,980/-
	permanent disability

¶86

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶87

FAO-859-2003 (O&M) FAO-451-2003 (O&M) -12-

¶88

2.	Pain & suffering	Rs.1,00,000/-
3.	Expenses incurred on treatment and future treatment	Rs.40,000/-
4.	Transportation and special diet	Rs.56,185/-
5.	attendant charges	Rs.2,00,000/-
6.	Loss of amenities	Rs.50,000/-
	Total	Rs.19,76,165/-
	Interest	9%

¶89

The enhanced compensation payable to claimant thus comes out to Rs.12,46,165/- (Rs.19,76,165/- - Rs.7,30,000/-) (rounded off to Rs.12,46,000/-) .

¶90

As a result of aforesaid discussion, the appeal bearing No.FAO-859-2003 is partly allowed with costs and appeal bearing No.FAO-451-2003 is hereby allowed with costs.

¶91

Appellant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.12,46,000/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 08.11.2000 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 4. However, Insurance Company shall first of all pay the amount to the claimant but it shall have a right to recover the deposited amount from the insured/owners i.e. respondents No.2 and 3 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization without filing a separate suit. Since, appellant/claimantSukhbir Singh has died during pendency of appeal, the compensation

¶92

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.10 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶93

FAO-859-2003 (O&M) FAO-451-2003 (O&M) -13-

¶94

along with interest be given to his legal heirs, who have already been impleaded as LRs in the present appeal.

¶95

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

¶96

disposed of.

¶97