Surjit Singh v. Simarnjit Singh And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Surjit Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Simranjit Singh @ Tina minor through his father & Ors.
...Respondents
Reserved on: 29.04.2026
Pronounced on: 1.05.2026 Pronounced fully/opera7ve part: Fully
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: None for the appellant.
Ms. Palak Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Tanvi Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Vineet Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle assailing the award dated 17.09.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, whereby compensa4on of ₹1,10,000/- was awarded to the minor claimant-Simranjit Singh @ Tina, and the insurance company was granted recovery rights against the owner on account of breach of policy condi4ons.
2.
The factual matrix, as emerges from the record, is that on 26.02.2002, the claimant, a minor aged about 9 years, was standing in the street along with his father, when a truck bearing registra4on No. RJ-13G4043, loaded with cement and driven by respondent No.2-Ajaib Singh in a
[2] rash and negligent manner, ran over him. As a result of the accident, both his legs were crushed and ul4mately his leA leg had to be amputated. FIR was registered and the claimant filed a pe44on under Sec4on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensa4on.
3.
The claim pe44on was contested by the respondents. The driver and owner denied negligence, whereas the insurance company took the plea that the driver was not holding a valid and effec4ve driving licence at the 4me of the accident.
4.
Upon apprecia4on of evidence, the learned Tribunal returned a categorical finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. However, while assessing compensa4on, the Tribunal awarded only ₹1,10,000/- under various heads including medical expenses, disability and pain & suffering. It was further held that the ini4al driving licence of the driver was fake and, therefore, though the insurer was directed to sa4sfy the award, it was granted recovery rights against the owner.
5.
Assailing the aforesaid award, the owner filed the present appeal primarily challenging the grant of recovery rights. However, during the course of hearing, it transpired that the appellant-owner was no longer interested in pursuing the appeal.
6.
Notwithstanding the above, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdic4on, vide order dated 28.08.2024, deemed it appropriate to examine the adequacy of compensa4on awarded, par4cularly keeping in view that the vic4m is a minor child, who has suffered permanent disability of a grave nature.
7.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant has contended that the compensa4on awarded by the Tribunal is wholly inadequate and does not sa4sfy the test of "just compensa4on". It is argued
[3] that the Tribunal failed to consider the long-term impact of amputa4on on the life of the child and did not assess the loss of future earning capacity by applying the mul4plier method.
8.
Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the grant of recovery rights on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the 4me of the accident. 9.
Heard. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence is based on proper apprecia4on of evidence and has not been seriously disputed before this Court. The same is, therefore, affirmed. 10.
The primary ques4on that arises for considera4on is with regard to the adequacy of compensa4on. It is now well seKled that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legisla4on and the Courts are under an obliga4on to award "just compensa4on", even if it requires enhancement in the absence of a cross-appeal, by invoking powers under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC.
11.
In Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Co., 2009
(13) SCC 710, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that compensa4on must be just, fair and reasonable.
12.
In the present case, the claimant is a 9-year-old child, who has suffered amputa4on of his leA leg. Such disability has to be treated as func4onal disability, affec4ng the en4re future life of the claimant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another (2011) 1 SCC 343 has held that assessment must be based on the impact of disability on earning capacity and life.
13.
Proceeding further, even in the case of minors, no4onal income can be taken and future prospects can be added, as held in Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2014 (1) SCC 244.
[4] 14.
Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the Tribunal has grossly undervalued the compensa4on. 15.
Taking the no4onal income at ₹15,000/- per annum and adding 40% towards future prospects in terms of Na*onal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680, the annual income comes to ₹21,000/-.
16.
Applying the mul4plier of 15, the total income comes to ₹3,15,000/-. Considering func4onal disability at 75%, on account of amputa4on of the leA leg, the loss of future earning capacity works out to ₹2,36,250/-.
17.
In addi4on thereto, the claimant is held en4tled to compensa4on under various heads, namely:
Medical expenses : ₹25,000/- Special diet and transporta4on : ₹25,000/- AKendant charges : ₹50,000/- Pain and suffering : ₹50,000/- Loss of ameni4es and enjoyment of life : ₹1,00,000/- Loss of marriage prospects : ₹1,00,000/- Thus, the total compensa4on is assessed at : ₹5,86,250/- (rounded off to ₹5,87,000/-) 18.
AAer deduc4ng the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement comes to ₹4,77,000/-.
19.
The finding of the Tribunal that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence has not been rebuKed. Therefore, the insurance company shall sa4sfy the award in the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner and driver.
[5] 20.
Accordingly, while the appeal filed by the owner stands dismissed, whereas the compensa4on payable to the claimant is enhanced to ₹5,87,000/-. He is held enhanced amount of ₹4,77,000/- along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe44on 4ll realiza4on. The insurer shall sa4sfy the award and shall have recovery rights against the owner and driver.
01.05.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 01.05.2026