Gurpreet Vs Makhan Lal

This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 10.05.2001 passed by MACT, Nawanshahar ( for short “Tribunal” ) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.61 of 1997 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.53,826/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 31.01.1996 due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1-Makhan Lal, while driving Matador bearing registration No. DL-IC/B-6694 (for short ‘offending vehicle’) , owned by respondent No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3.

¶17

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

FAO-565-2002

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

Since respondents were ex parte, no issues were framed.

¶21

The claimants led evidence in support of their case.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.53,826/- 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, jointly and severally.

¶23

Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and learned counsel for the appellant has been heard.

¶24

It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

¶25

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 50% permanent disability and he has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.53,826/- for expenses incurred on treatment, pain and suffering and permanent disability. Learned counsel further argued that on account of permanent disability suffered by him, the claimant will suffer ‘loss of income’ in future as well and adequate compensation has also not been awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. Learned counsel prayed that impugned award is thus liable to be modified and appellant is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. In

¶26

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

- 3 -

¶28

FAO-565-2002

¶29

support of her contentions, learned counsel 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 .

¶30

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.

¶31

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 following heads:-

¶32

Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

¶33

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

¶34

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

FAO-565-2002

¶36

- 4 -

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability

¶40

(iii) Future medical expenses.

¶41

Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)

¶42

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

¶43

injuries.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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.

¶47

Claimant is a minor and had suffered grievous injuries in the accident and has become permanently disabled. He was 8 years of age at the time of accident and learned Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs.53,826/- as compensation and held as under:-

¶48

“Now, it is to be assessed, as to how much amount, petitioner is entitled to claim. Dr. Devinder singh, PW3, has deposed that on 13.3.97, he examined Gurpreet Singh son of Kuldip Singh, aged 8 years and found his disability as old treated case of fracture shaft of

¶49

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶50

FAO-565-2002

¶51

- 5 -

¶52

femur right side and compound fracture of both bones of fight leg and there was loss of movement at right knee and ankle and there was marked scaring of leg muscles and that his disability was assessed at 50% vide certificate, Ex.PW/3/I. Dr. Vikram PW-4 has testified that in the year 1996, Gurpreet Singh was referred to DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana vide reference from 31.1.1996 and he was treated there and had found the injuries as mentioned in his statement, that the patient was discharged from the Hospital on 8.4.1996 and that Ex.PW4/A and Ex. P23/A, works out to Rs. 28,826/- which the petitioner is entitled to get as compensation. Besides this, as per the evidence tendered by Dr. Devinder Singh, PW3, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 50% vide certificate Ex. PW3/I. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Ps. 25,000/- under no fault liability clause and in this manner. the total amount of compensation which he is entitled to get, computes to Rs. 53,826/-.”

¶53

However, adequate compensation has not been assessed and awarded

¶54

to the claimant. The claimant has suffered multiple fractures including a fracture of the shaft of the right femur and a compound fracture of both bones of the right leg. He also suffered loss of movement at right knee and ankle with marked scarring of leg muscles.

¶55

PW4, Dr. Vikram, deposed that in the year 1996, the claimant was referred to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, where he was treated by him for the aforesaid injuries. The claimant was admitted on 31.01.1996 and discharged on 08.04.1996 and he tendered the discharge slip as Ex.PW4/A.

¶56

As per testimony of PW3 Dr. Devinder Singh, claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 50% as per disability certificate Ex.PW3/I.

¶57

The Tribunal has held that as per the disability certificate, the

¶58

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶59

FAO-565-2002 - 6 -

¶60

claimant had suffered 50% disability and keeping in view the age of the victim and the fact that he remained admitted in the hospital for treatment for about three months, a sum of Rs.53,826/- was awarded for permanent disability and expenses incurred on treatment.

¶61

However, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on account of pain and sufferings. The claimant had suffered fractures as well as permanent disability. It must have taken at least six months for the injuries to heal but no compensation has been given under the head of ‘pain and sufferings’. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous but Tribunal has gravely erred by not awarding compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’. Taking into consideration the severity of the injuries suffered by the claimant, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of ‘ pain and suffering ’.

¶62

The claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50% on account of fracture of the shaft of the right femur, a compound fracture of both bones of the right leg and loss of movement at right knee and ankle with marked scaring of leg muscles. The claimant was 08 years of age and this disability will remain with him throughout his life and will certainly diminish his earning capability. 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 .

¶63

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶64

- 7 -

¶65

FAO-565-2002

¶66

Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 ACJ 1624 titled Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha and others while relying upon judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2024 SCC Online SC 3692, Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon , has held that minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State have to be taken into consideration while assessing income in the case of a child because that would be the minimum amount which a child would have earned on attaining the age of majority. In Karuna Parmar’s case (supra) , a girl aged 6 years had died and taking into consideration the minimum wages for skilled workers in the year 2014 to be Rs.223 per day, annual income was assessed as Rs.80,280/- and thereafter, future prospects were added and after applying multiplier of 18, the compensation was assessed. 19. In the present case, the claimant was 08 years of age at the time of acident. The accident had taken place on 31.01.1996 and during those days, minimum wages earned by a skilled person were around Rs.1500/- per month. Accordingly, income of the claimant is taken as Rs.1500/- per month .

¶67

Since, claimant was 08 years of age on the date of accident, 40% amount has to be added to his monthly income towards future prospects in view of law laid down in 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and after adding the same, his monthly income comes out to Rs.2,100/- per month (Rs.1500/- + Rs.600/-).

¶68

Claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50% and the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.1,050/- (Rs.2,100 × 50%) and annual loss of income will come out to Rs.12,600/- per annum (Rs.1,050 × 12) . 22. The claimant was 08 years of age and in view of law laid down in

¶69

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶70

FAO-565-2002 - 8 -

¶71

Karuna Parmar’s case (supra) and 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 18 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.2,26,800/- (Rs.12,600 × 18) on account of ‘ loss of income ’ due to permanent disability.

¶72

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on account of expenses incurred on special diet, transportation and in engaging an attendant. Since, claimant had remained under treatment for about three months, he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of expenses incurred on special diet, transportation and in engaging an attendant .

¶73

Since, claimant was minor and has suffered 50% disability which will remain with him throughout his life, he is also entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities.

¶74

So far as expenses incurred on treatment are concerned, a sum of Rs.28,826/- has been awarded as per medical bills Ex.P23/A placed on file and the same does not call for any interference.

¶75

Resultantly, the compensation to be paid to claimant is assessed as

¶76

under:-

¶77

Sr. No.	Head of Compensation	Amount
1.	Pain and Sufferings	Rs.20,000/-
2.	Loss of Future Income due to Permanent Disability	Rs.2,26,800/-
3.	Special Diet, Transportation and attendant charges	Rs.10,000/-
4.	Expenses incurred on treatment	Rs.28,826/-
5.	Loss of amenities	Rs.30,000/-
	Total Compensation	Rs.3,15,626/-

¶78

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶79

FAO-565-2002 - 9 -

¶80

As a result of afore-said discussion, the present appeal is partly accepted with costs and the claimant is held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,61,800/- (Rs.3,15,626/- − Rs.53,826/-) (rounded off to Rs.2,62,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by Tribunal, payable by respondents, jointly and severally, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 28.01.1997, till realization.

¶81

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

¶82

(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 13.07.2026 JUDGE Priyanka Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

¶83

PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.15 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurpreet v. Makhan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet v. Makhan Lal

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

Krishna Devi Vs Manoj Kumar

Murti Devi and Others. Vs Manoj Kumar

Gurudwara Shri Tahliana Sahib, Raikot, Ludhiana Vs Surjit Kaur

Monica and Ors. Vs Vijay Lal and Ors.

Satnam Kaur Vs Surinder Singh

Bishni Devi and Ors. Vs Surinder Khanna and Anr.