Ishwar Kumar v. Avtar Singh And Others

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 12.05.2026 Ishwar Kumar ...Appellant

Versus

Avtar Singh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Rajesh K. Dhankar, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-15041-CII-2019 & CM-14979-CII-2019 Heard.

For the reasons men4oned in the applica4ons, the same are allowed and delay of 01 day in filing the appeal; and delay of 52 days in refiling the appeal are hereby condoned. FAO-4519-2019 The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensa4on by way of modifica4on of the award dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur. 2.

Briefly stated, the claimant-appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 15.02.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registra4on No.PB-13-AB-4399. In the pe44on filed under Sec4on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, the learned Tribunal awarded compensa4on of ₹2,27,953/- along with interest vide award dated 30.11.2018 and held the respondents jointly and severally liable to sa4sfy the award.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has

[2] contended that the compensa4on awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate and does not commensurate with the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and the period during which he remained under treatment.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.

5.

The scope of interference in an appeal seeking enhancement of compensa4on is limited to examining whether the compensa4on awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable. Unless it is demonstrated that the Tribunal has ignored a relevant head of compensa4on or has awarded compensa4on which is palpably inadequate, interference is not warranted. 6.

In the present case, the medical record reveals that the claimant remained hospitalized from 16.02.2017 to 23.02.2017 i.e. for about eight days. The injuries no4ced were haemorrhagic contusions in the right occipital region with right pneumothorax accompanied by subcutaneous emphysema. However, at the 4me of discharge, the condi4on of the claimant was found stable.

7.

Significantly, there is no evidence on record to establish that the claimant suffered any fracture or permanent disability on account of the accident. No disability cer4ficate has been produced. There is also no evidence that any surgical procedure was undertaken or that the injuries resulted in any long-term func4onal impairment affec4ng the earning capacity of the claimant.

8.

The learned Tribunal has already awarded medical expenses to the tune of ₹73,453/- on the basis of medical bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C47 produced by the claimant. The said amount fully covers the actual treatment expenses proved on record.

[3] 9.

The Tribunal further assessed the monthly income of the claimant at ₹26,875/- on the basis of income tax return produced by him and awarded loss of income for a period of four months. In the absence of any evidence showing prolonged incapacity or permanent disability, grant of loss of income for four months cannot be said to be inadequate. 10.

Apart from the aforesaid amounts, compensa4on has also been awarded under the conven4onal heads including pain and suffering, transporta4on charges, special diet and aJendant charges. The compensa4on granted under these heads appears to be reasonable and commensurate with the nature of injuries and dura4on of treatment. 11.

Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any specific head under which compensa4on has either been denied or inadequately assessed by the learned Tribunal. Mere asser4on that the amount awarded is on the lower side, without any suppor4ng evidence regarding permanent disability, future treatment, prolonged hospitaliza4on or loss of earning capacity, cannot cons4tute a valid ground for enhancement.

12.

It is well seJled that compensa4on under the Motor Vehicles Act is required to be "just compensa4on" and not a source of profit or windfall. The award passed by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, sa4sfies the said requirement. 13.

Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity or inadequacy in the compensa4on awarded by the learned Tribunal warran4ng interference. Dismissed.

12.05.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No