Lakhmi Chand Vs Mewa Singh and Ors.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensa*on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 10.09.2003.

¶15

A perusal of the record would reveal that in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 05.06.1999, claimant Lakhmi Chand sustained mulple injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registraon No. PB12C-1471. Immediately a6er the accident, he was shi6ed from the spot to the Government Hospital, Guhla and therea6er, referred to PGI, Chandigarh for further treatment. The claimant therea6er filed a pe**on under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensa*on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶16

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.17 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

FAO-5139-2003

¶18

Despite service, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the proceedings before the Tribunal and were proceeded against ex parte. The insurance company alone contested the claim pe**on, inter alia on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effec*ve driving licence at the *me of the accident.

¶19

Upon appreciaon of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PB-12C-1471 by respondent No.1 Mewa Singh. The Tribunal further recorded a finding that the driving licence of respondent No.1 was fake. Consequently, the Tribunal assessed the compensaon at ₹1,25,000/- and held the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the same along with interest, while gran*ng recovery rights to the insurance company against the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶20

It may also be no*ced that the owner of the offending vehicle had filed a separate appeal bearing FAO No.1613 of 2007 challenging the grant of recovery rights to the insurer. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court on 07.08.2009. Thus, the findings regarding liability have already aCained finality.

¶21

The present appeal filed by the claimant is confined only to the queson of quantum of compensaon.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the medical evidence on record. It is submiCed that as per the tesmony of PW-1 Dr. K.K. Mukherjee, the claimant had suffered severe head injury with intracranial bleeding and his disability was assessed as 100% impairment in relaon to the whole body. According to the learned counsel, considering the nature of injuries and disability suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have assessed compensaon for loss of future earning capacity by applying the mulplier method. It is argued that the compensa*on of ₹1,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is wholly inadequate.

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.17 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

FAO-5139-2003

¶26

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the medical evidence does not conclusively establish permanent disability of the claimant. It is pointed out that in his cross-examina*on, PW-1 Dr. K.K. Mukherjee himself admiCed that the disability could be either temporary or permanent. It is further argued that the claimant himself appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and deposed in support of his case, which indicates that he was not suffering from such severe neurological disability as claimed.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the pares and perused the record, this Court finds that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the compensaon payable to the claimant.

¶28

The medical evidence shows that the claimant had sustained a severe head injury with intracranial bleeding and was treated at PGI, Chandigarh. PW-1 Dr. K.K. Mukherjee assessed the impairment of the claimant as 100% in relaon to the whole body. It is true that in cross-examinaon, the witness stated that he could not defini*vely state, whether the disability was temporary or permanent. However, such an answer by the doctor does not completely dilute the seriousness of the injuries proved on record.

¶29

In cases involving head injuries, parcularly those affecng neurological funconing, the extent of disability cannot always be measured with mathemacal precision. The Courts are required to assess funconal disability, i.e. the impact of the injuries on the earning capacity of the injured person. Even where the medical evidence does not conclusively establish permanent disability in strict medical terms, the Court can assess the extent to which the injuries would have impaired the earning capacity of the vicm.

¶30

In the present case, the claimant had suffered a serious head injury with bleeding inside the brain and had to be referred to a terary medical instuon. Such injuries, by their very nature, are likely to have lasng consequences affecng the normal physical and mental facules of a person. Therefore, while the medical evidence may not conclusively establish permanent

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.17 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

FAO-5139-2003

¶34

100% disability, it would be reasonable to hold that the claimant suffered substanal funconal disability affec*ng his earning capacity.

¶35

Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the evidence on record, the funconal disability affecng the earning capacity of the claimant can reasonably be assessed at 50%.

¶36

At the *me of the accident, the claimant was 55 years of age. In the absence of documentary proof of income, his income can safely be assessed on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant *me, which comes to ₹1900/- per month, i.e., ₹1900 × 12 = ₹22,800 per annum

¶37

Applying 50% funconal disability, the loss of earning capacity per annum would be: ₹22,800 × 50% = ₹11,400 per annum. Considering the age of the claimant (55 years), the appropriate mulplier applicable would be 11. Therefore, the loss of future earnings works out to be ₹11,400 × 11 = ₹1,25,400.

¶38

Apart from the loss of earning capacity, the claimant is also entled to compensaon under other heads considering the nature of injuries suffered.

¶39

The compensa*on is accordingly reassessed as under:

¶40

�	Head	Amount
�	Loss of future earning capacity	₹1,25,400
�	Pain and suffering	₹40,000
�	Medical expenses	₹25,000
�	Special diet, aCendant &
	transporta*on	₹20,000
�	Total	₹2,10,400

¶41

Since the Tribunal had awarded ₹1,25,000/-, the claimant becomes entled to enhanced compensaon of ₹85,400/-.

¶42

Page 4 of 5

¶43

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.17 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

FAO-5139-2003

¶45

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be en*tled to the enhanced amount of ₹85,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe**on ll realizaon.

¶46

It is clarified that though the insurance company shall pay the aforesaid amount to the claimant in the first instance, it shall have the right to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, as already granted by the Tribunal.

¶47

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶48

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 17.03.2026 Nee�ka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No

¶49

Uploaded on.: 17.03.2026

¶50

Page 5 of 5

¶51

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.17 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Lakhmi Chand v. Mewa Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhmi Chand v. Mewa 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Vs Ranjeet and Ors.

Ajit Singh Vs Sher Singh and Ors.

Baba Gopal Dass Chela Surti Dass Since Deceased through Gaddi Nasheen Mahant Ram Niwas Das Ji Vs Ghat Talab Kaulan Wala

Raghbir Singh Alias Bira Vs the Gurdaspur Central Coop. Bank Ltd.

Kalawati Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Esi Corporation

Ram Singh Vs Swaran Singh etc.