Meena Devi v. Vaibhav Pratap Singh And Others
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 12.11.2025 Meena Devi ...Appellant
Versus
Vaibhav Pratap Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:
Mr. Mohit, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred by the claimant-Meena Devi seeking enhancement of compensa3on awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, vide award dated 03.02.2025. The grievance of the appellant is that the compensa3on of ₹15,71,200/- assessed by the Tribunal is inadequate keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by her. 2.
The accident in ques3on took place on 05.01.2021 due to rash and negligent driving of car No. HR-12-T-0828, resul3ng in mul3ple grievous injuries to the appellant. She was then 26 years of age and a student of ITI. She remained under treatment at Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College & Hospital, Karnal, where she underwent surgery and fixa3on with rods/plates.
3.
The medical record established the following injuries: Fracture of right proximal 3bia Fracture of right femur Fracture of right patella Fracture of both clavicles
[2] 4.
Surgical procedures for fixa3on of plate in right 3bia, nailing of right femur and clavicle were carried out. She remained admiDed from 05.01.2021 to 14.01.2021. Her permanent disability was assessed at 18%, confined to the right lower limb. Relying upon the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and others, (2011) 2 RCR (Civil) 101, the Tribunal assessed the func3onal disability at 25%, considering that the injuries would adversely affect her future earning capacity, though she was not employed at the 3me of accident. 5.
To compute loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal adopted the following methodology:
No3onal income assessed at ₹18,000/- per month (slightly above DC rates considering qualifica3ons and reasonable prospects). Addi3on of 40% towards future prospects in terms of Na onal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Mul3plier of 17, corresponding to age 26 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
Func3onal disability taken as 25%.
On this basis, the Tribunal awarded ₹12,85,200/- towards loss of future earnings.
6.
Under other conven3onal and special heads, the following amounts were granted:
Loss of income during treatment : ₹6,000/- Future medical expenses : ₹1,00,000/- Special diet & transporta3on : ₹20,000/- Pain and suffering : ₹25,000/- Loss of ameni3es : ₹25,000/- Loss of marriage prospects : ₹1,00,000/- Loss of expectancy of life : ₹10,000/-
[3] This cumula3vely amounted to ₹15,71,200/-.
7.
In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has been heard at length. The record of the Tribunal has been examined with due care.
8.
It is evident that the Tribunal has undertaken a detailed and systema3c analysis while evalua3ng the injuries, disability and impact on future earning capacity. The func3onal disability at 25% has been arrived at in accordance with the principles laid down in Raj Kumar (supra), wherein the Supreme Court emphasized that medical disability is not conclusive and the real test is the impact of disability on earning poten3al. 9.
The no3onal income of ₹18,000/- per month is not arbitrary; rather, it reflects a realis3c assessment of the earning prospects of an ITItrained young woman with reasonable career opportuni3es. The addi3on of 40% towards future prospects and the applica3on of mul3plier 17 strictly adhere to the binding precedents of Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma. 10.
It is further no3ced that the Tribunal has awarded separate and adequate amounts under the non-pecuniary heads, including future medical expenses and loss of marriage prospects, which are oMen either overlooked or modestly awarded in comparable cases. Considering the nature of injuries and period of hospitaliza3on, the amount awarded for pain, suffering and ameni3es of life is also reasonable. 11.
Viewed holis3cally, the compensa3on awarded is neither low nor arbitrary. Rather, it appears to be just, fair and logical, based on seDled principles of motor accident compensa3on law. No material has been brought on record by the appellant to show that the Tribunal ignored any legi3mate claim or omiDed any relevant head of compensa3on. 12.
In the considered view of this Court, the compensa3on assessed by the Tribunal is fair, reasonable and commensurate with the injur-
[4] ies suffered by the appellant. No ground is made out for further enhancement. 13.
Therefore, the appeal being without merit is accordingly dismissed. 12.11.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No