Gurmej Ram Alias Gurmej Singh v. Surender And Others
FAO-220-2025 Page 1 of 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 27.01.2026 FAO-220-2025(O&M) Gurmej Ram @ Gurmej Singh ...Appellant(s) Vs.
Surender & Others
...Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Ms. Kritika Mandhan, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Dhanora, Advocate for the appellant.
*** NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-796-CII-2025 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the appeal. After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the appellant, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 36 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. MAIN CASE Present appeal has been filed by injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.14,32,655/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter 'the learned Tribunal') vide Award dated 25.07.2024 passed in MACP Case No.91 dated
FAO-220-2025 Page 2 of 5 22.02.2019 filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter "the Act").
2.
Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 15.12.2018 due to the rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing registration No.HR-04H-7577 (hereinafter "the offending vehicle") being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The said compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Respondent No.3 was held liable to pay the compensation amount. 3.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that in the accident in question, the appellant had suffered permanent disability of 15%; as a result of which he is unable to do his previous activities. Prior to the accident, the appellant was an agriculturist and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Yet, Tribunal has taken income of the appellant as only Rs.8,541/- per month. The learned Tribunal has awarded very less compensation for future loss of income, loss of income, transportation, attendant charges, diet and nutrition etc. Even interest is awarded on the lower side as only 7.5%; whereas the same should be 12% per annum. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modified.
FAO-220-2025 Page 3 of 5 4.
No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. 5.
It was the pleaded case of the appellant before the learned Tribunal that prior to the accident, the appellant was an agriculturist and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The appellant had also pleaded that in the accident, he had received multiple serious and grievous injuries on various parts of his body including right leg. Perusal of the medical evidence on record shows that PW4 Dr. Anup Mehta had issued Disability Certificate (Ex.P4/A) to show that the appellant had suffered permanent disability of 15%. However, PW4 Dr. Anup Mehta has clearly and categorically deposed that the said disability of the appellant is of a particular limb and not qua the whole body. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal has correctly assessed functional disability of the appellant as only 10%.
Further, in assessing the functional disability as 10%, the learned Tribunal had duly taken note of the fact that the appellant was unable to prove his assertion that he was an agriculturist by profession and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In view of the above fact, the learned Tribunal had also assessed income of the appellant as Rs.8541/- per month on the basis of Notification issued by the relevant Minimum Wage Notification issued by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana. Age of the appellant was determined to be 52 years old.
FAO-220-2025 Page 4 of 5 prospects @ 10%; and correctly applied multiplier of 11. The Tribunal further awarded compensation as follows:- Head Amount Annual income prior to the accident Rs.8,541/- Future prospects of 10% Rs.8,541/- x 10/100 = Rs.854/- Annual income Rs.8,541/- + Rs.854/- = Rs.9395/- x 12 = Rs.1,12,740/- Multiplier Loss of future earning due to permanent disability Rs.1,12,740/- x = Rs.12,40,140/- Loss of income Rs.9,940/- Transportation to hospital Rs.10,000/- Attendant charges Rs.10,000/- Diet and nutrition Rs.15,000/- Medical expenses Rs.1,37,575/- Future expenses Nil Percentage of disability assessed 10% permanent disability Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Loss of prospectus of marriage Nil Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity 10% Loss of future earning capacity in relation to disability Rs.12,40,140/- Total Rs.14,32,655/- 6.
From the above, it is clear that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellant. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of Haryana
FAO-220-2025 Page 5 of 5 & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others' Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and 'Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty', (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In the case of "General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others" 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation.
7.
Present appeal accordingly stands dismissed.
8.
Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 27.01.2026 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No