High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/495/2015allowed

Aasif v. Imran And ORS

2026-04-07Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma16 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH AASIF (MINOR) THROUGH HIS FATHER ......Appellant Vs.

IMRAN & ORS ......Respondents

Reserved on: 02.04.2026

Pronounced on: 07.04.2026 Uploaded on: 08.04.2026

CORAM: HON9BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:

Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. U.M. Khan, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.

**** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 22.05.2014 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 81988 Act9), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat (in short 8the Tribunal9) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.4,88,636/6 along with 7.5% interest on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant 3 Aasif (minor) in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 08.02.2013. 2.

As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of

2 the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 3.

The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be enhanced, as per latest law. 4.

, learned counsel for the respondents, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as assessed by Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted to the appellant/claimant. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the present appeal. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION 6.

Hon9ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, has held as under:6

!" #$%&''()#)* + - $ , $. - $ /

- + , $

$ - / - - - . $,

/$ - # - $- , -

, , -

( 01 -

2 1 +

$#23 %&45 0647$389 0 (2

* :$%&& (%* 00

% ;

+ - $%&45#0<74* 7 ,

, = ( * .

> $ $ $ $ .

(

*: (

*, , - $ = ( *: ?

(-*:

(

* @ .

* ( *8

$ /

(*: ( C

* ( *:.

( * 2 $ , -

( *$(

*( * ( *2 $ , -

$ , - (

*(-*$(

*$(* ( *

$ .

( C

* .

...

( *# (

(

, , - $ - -

(. , $, - - $

* (

* , A

-/ .

, - -

- ,

( *

$ $

-$ $

4 "#$

% '

()( = $ ,+ $, 65 36555CA # 8) $

- / , 75D /

, / 65D

, - - % D- $ -

$- , 0 , - ,= *# - =367$555CA -*: (% D *= 3 <55CA *!

- , =%4 *: =( <55.%4*= 3&%$'55CA '

(*(= , 65 $ 3 6555CA 9

75D9, - 9 - + -$

, + -

4 D0 , - ,=

*# =367$555CA -*: (4 D * =3E4555CA *!

- , =%4 *: =(E4555.%4*=3<$ &$555CA '

(+( = , E # $, ,$ , , - , 45D# ,

, 45D - ,=

, - =375$555CA -*: (45D.

* =3<E555CA *!

- (E * =%' *: =(<E555.%'* =34$ 7$555CA F = (#* (;*

2 (0*, -

+ # 1 !

( *G

5 7.

Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of , ' + .

/0 [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under Sections 166, 1636A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following aspects:6 (A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand;

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased; (C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier; (D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation; (E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self6employed or fixed salary. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:6 < $, + . - 2 - $ $ $ .

-3% $555$3<5$555 3% $555

; - A / A + , -

, / -

- - %5D

- , - H 8.

Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of 1 .

$+- "#"#)+2"34has held as under:6 I4 , / -.

- =

% %(5(

%(6(?

2 0

$E5%4#0J E455( 0*2

$0 ;

- -

" ( * 8 0 #$E55&#0J%E&'( 0*2 % AE $

- )%') , .

- 0 $$,

-)%') )%4) -

%78 2

, -

J ! K$E5%'#0J%5%%( 0*

1 # 8 K#$E5%4#0J&4&( 0*. - ,

J ( *

'= L' 2

-- # ,

$ , = ( *

$ ?

: ?

(

? ( * ! .

- / + ? (* :.

L F

- > $

1 ( *

, /

2 $ ,.

$ , C

> '

%M # E5%%J E5%6 - = L, % = ( * (

* -- (

* -- ( * 6$<K

(* - ( * (

* --

$ - 0 ,

;

$ , .@$ -

1 ( * ,

- + $$/

, -

6%%D / - 2 0: ( *$

7%(

$ , - 5D

"8 2

, , &D ,

J N ( * $

, &D ,

- 0 +0,+-9'0, '

$ -

$, - ,= :

) : , (3%<$7<'.%E.6%%C%55 3&$'%$&4'CA @ ( 5

* 3<$&5$&'&CA ! .

$ $ 3%'$<7$'7<CA :

3 $55$555CA : $

3%$ 5$555CA

3E$55$555CA

3<%$7&$'6%CA

, $$- 3<%$7&$'6%CA

, &D

8 9.

A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the minor Aasif was 12 years of age at the time of the accident. The learned tribunal has committed a manifest error in not calculating loss of income of the minor, therefore, this Court deems it fit to calculate it as under.

10.

As far as the income of the minor is concerned, the Apex Court in its recent authoritative pronouncement :

, * , ; 4"#"3',+#5#, has categorically held that a minor child who dies or suffers permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident cannot be equated with a non6earning individual merely because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. The Court has further clarified that, in such cases, the computation of compensation under the head <loss of income= must be undertaken by adopting at the very least the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the State where the cause of action arises. The relevant extract from the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:6 I&

, 0- ,2 $ 0 - ,

, / 2 , , A

, ,

$ -

A -

9 ,

2 $ - - $

$ ,

- + ,+

- - 0$ < 2

+ 0 4*=

>?) )H 11.

Therefore, considering the judgment referred to above and the minimum wages of a skilled worker prevalent at the time of accident, this Court deems it fit to reassess the income of claimant/appellant as Rs.5,500/. 12.

A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal erred in not adding future prospects to the income of the deceased. Considering the age of the deceased (12 years) 40% is to be added as future prospects. Moreover, no multiplier was applied by the learned Tribunal. In view of the age of the minor, the appropriate multiplier of 18 is liable to be applied. 13.

A further perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the lower side to the claimant under the heads of Pain and suffering, which is required to be enhanced. 14.

It is trite that permanent disability suffered by an individual not only impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities, but there are multiple non6quantifiable implications for the victim. Further, the very fact that healthy person turns into invalid being deprived of normal companionship and incapable of leading a productive life makes one suffer loss of dignity. As borne out from the

10 record, the minor has suffered grievous injuries on his person. He remained in Sanya Hospital from 08.02.2013 to 26.02.2013. Dr. Farukh PW63 deposed regarding the disability of the minor as assessed by the medical board at PGIMS. Further, he placed on record the disability certificate Ex.PW3/A, which shows the disability incurred by the minor as 50%. In addition to this, various bills Ex.P152 to Ex.P156 were placed on record. The minor being only 12 years of age suffered immense pain due to the accident and will probably be under the horrifying effect of this traumatic experience for whole his life. This fairly concludes the fact that the appellant/claimant has suffered immense amount of pain and agony due to the accident in question.

15.

The Hon9ble Apex Court in the case of 8<> ;

"#"@ ',+ 66A highlighted the intangible but devastating consequence of pain and suffering. The relevant portion of the same is reproduce as under:6 <% 1

, -A$ $O

) $ A

8 -$, /

- $ 3% $55$555CA O

, -

3%5$55$555CA$, -$

- =

11 16.

Therefore, in view of the above judgment and facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant compensation of 5 lakhs under the heads of pain and suffering. 17.

Further perusal of the record shows that the minor has suffered various grievous injuries on his body making his life miserable. As a result, he had to depend on others for his daily activities and likely to have employed an attendant to assist him for his physical movements. This Court has dealt with similar issue in case titled as )< 2

B)0,73AC"##54 6#""#"3The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:6 D)$$1,),$+:);1

$9N- # .

0 <.

4"#"#";+;+ "54 , , -%E , %'%5E554 , -- 9)- # .

EE E

= LEE - - 9 0

3E$ 55 << $, ,+ 3 %6$E5$555 P $ !

$ +

- , - $ , >- 0 B- ! :3!1 " , $%& 'A7 #0J%4&( 0*

- $

- >

- 2- -,

), # E6 .....

E< .....

$, , -

+ , -

#, $, - -

- -

- , - , / ,, -

- 9

E5%5$, , + - 3<$'<7 $$ 3 $555 , / ,

, ,+3%5$555CA $, 3%$E5$555CA $

%' ,+3E%$75$555

2 , - 8

0 $,

%55D , / A $$ , -

%55D

, /

$ -

, , -/ @%55D

, /

13 +, .

, @ , , 3%5$555CA

, / %55D

$ , -

+ 3%5$555CA ,

3E5$555CA, 6'

2 $ -

%55D

, -$ . A<

6%5 E55 $ @$

6& #

, <E

, E<

2<E $9N- 0 >

- , $ +

$ $ $

/ $

- 18.

In view of the above judgment and considering young age and disability suffered by the minor, he is entitled to attendant charges to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/. 19.

A further perusal of the award shows that the learned tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation under the head of 8loss of marriage

14 prospects9, despite the claimant being only 12 years old at the time of the accident and having his entire life before him. The learned Tribunal failed to consider the impact of injury on his ability to marry, find a life partner, and enjoy normal matrimonial prospects. Hon9ble the Supreme Court, in its decision in ; ; , ' +4"#"77;+;+ 35@ squarely addresses this omission and recognizes that such non6pecuniary loss arising from permanent disability including loss of marriage prospects deserves just compensation.

20.

The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:6 D-

E5 - - 0

, -

0 0 #

( *$,

. 36 +

2 , -$ 0

5555 Q

H 21.

Therefore, in accordance with the above referred to judgment and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court deems it fit to award Rs.4,00,000/ under the head of loss of marriage prospects. 22.

A further perusal of the award reveals that meager amount is granted by the learned Tribunal under the heads of loss of amenities of life and no amount was granted under the heads of transportation, special diet and medical expenses for future treatment. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

15 ;1-'1B 23.

In view of the above, the present appeal is and award dated 22.05.2014 is modified. Accordingly, as per the settled principles of law as laid down by Hon9ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the appellant6claimant is held entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation as calculated below:6 Sr. No.

Heads Compensation Awarded Income Rs.5,500/6 Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.2,200/6 (40% of Rs.5,500 /6) Annual Income Rs.92,400/6 (Rs.7700/6 X 12) Loss of future earning on account of 50% disability Rs.46,200/6 (Rs. 92,400 /6 X 50%) Multiplier of 18 Rs.8,31,600/6 (Rs.46,200 /6X 18) Medical Expenses Rs.88,636/6 Pain and suffering Rs.5,00,000/6 Attendant Charges Rs.1,00,000/6 Transportation Charges Rs.70,000/6 Loss of amenities of life + loss of marriage prospects Rs.6,00,000/6 Future medical expenses

Special Diet Rs.1,00,000/6 Total compensation awarded: Rs.23,90,236/ Deduction: Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.4,88,636/ Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.19,01,600/ (23,90,236 4,88,636) 24.

So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon9ble Supreme Court in

F *.

. "#)+275A and ;. 0

.$ , $ + "#""3 + + #5, the amount so calculated shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization.

16 25.

Consequently, respondent No.36Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest to the appellant6claimant. The appellant6claimant is directed to furnish his bank account details to the Tribunal.

26.

Respondent No.36Insurance Company is hereby directed to disburse the current scheduled fee to Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate, within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, in view of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007 by this Court. 27.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 07.04.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) # -C

JUDGE Whether speaking/non6speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No