Page 1 of 7

FAO 8582/2017(O&M)
2023:PHHC:072927

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

FAO 8582/2017(O&M)

Date of decision: 18.05.2023.

Sanjeev Sharma
………………Appellant

Vs.

Sh.Yadwinder Singh and others

………………Respondents

CORAM HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Vipul, Advocate for

Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent no.3-

Insurance Company.

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation of Rs.14,68,000/- granted by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Tribunal’) vide Award dated 5.9.2016 passed in MACT Case No.363/2015

u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that ld. Tribunal on the appraisal of

facts, pleadings and evidence adduced on record held that the injured-claimant

(appellant herein) sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took

place on 24.12.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing

registration No. CH-04-A-0061 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending

vehicle’) being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and

insured by respondent no.3. The Tribunal awarded compensation as above

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI

2023.06.01 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
 Page 2 of 7
FAO 8582/2017(O&M)
2023:PHHC:072927

alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition till realization. Liability to pay the compensation was joint and

several.

3. Ld. counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of

compensation on the ground that due to the injuries suffered by the appellant,

in the accident in question the appellant has been rendered 80% disabled. It

is further submitted that at the time of accident the appellant was 43 years of

age and was a businessman and used to fit Dish TV from which vocation he

was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. However, as a result of the accident he

suffered fracture of both bones distal right leg, Hemiperisis right side, head

injury, fracture ribs and other multiple injuries. He was taken to Civil Hospital

Mohali from where he was referred to GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh. He had

undergone an operation and External Fixator was applied. He remained in

ICU in GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh for about one month in unconscious

state. He was discharged on 3.2.2015. He was again admitted in GMCH 32,

Chandigarh on 10.3.2015. He was again operated on 17.3.2015 and 25.3.2015.

He was discharged on 6.4.2015. It is submitted that till date the appellant is

bed ridden and cannot move without any support and is continuously under

follow-up treatment in GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh. He was examined by

the Medical Board of GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh and his permanent

disability was assessed to the extent of 75%, which has been taken as 80%

functional disability by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that appellant is

in wheelchair and in this situation functional disability of the appellant should

have been assessed as 100%. It is further submitted that in these circumstances

sum of Rs.78,000/- as granted by the ld. Tribunal towards attendant charges

is on lower side and deserves to be enhanced; and also amount of Rs.5,040/-

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2023.06.01 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
 Page 3 of 7
FAO 8582/2017(O&M)
2023:PHHC:072927

granted by the Tribunal towards physiotherapy is also on lower side and

deserves to be enhanced. In support, ld. counsel relies upon judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jithendran v New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

And anr., Law Finder Doc Id # 1901704, and judgment dated 8.12.2022 of

this Court in Ms. Arti v Sakun Ahmed @ Kaka and others, FAO No.7459

of 2017.

4. In response, it is submitted by the ld. counsel for the Insurance

Company that ld. Tribunal has granted future prospects @ 30% whereas

keeping in view that the appellant was 43 years of age, the same should be

taken as 25%. It is further submitted that notional income of the appellant has

been assessed on higher side as Rs.7,000/- per month whereas as per relevant

Minimum Wage Notification, notional income ought to be fixed at Rs.6,647/-

per month. Ld. counsel relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi and others

(2017) 16 SCC 680, in particular paragraph 54 thereof and submits that once

the multiplier method has been adopted, loss of income already stands

assessed and therefore, nothing needs to be granted towards pain and suffering

and loss of amenities.

5. No other argument has been raised.

6. Heard ld. counsel.

7. Fact that age of the appellant is 43 years at the time of accident

is not disputed. Perusal of the record of the case shows that in the accident in

question the appellant has suffered injuries as already enumerated

hereinabove. However, the same are re-reproduced here for proper

appreciation. It is undisputed that in the accident in question, the appellant

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2023.06.01 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
 Page 4 of 7
FAO 8582/2017(O&M)
2023:PHHC:072927

suffered fracture of both bones distal right leg, Hemiperisis right side, head

injury, fracture ribs and other multiple injuries. He was taken to Civil Hospital

Mohali from where he was referred to GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh. He had

undergone an operation and External Fixator was applied. He remained in

ICU in GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh for about one month in unconscious

state. He was discharged on 3.2.2015. He was again admitted in GMCH 32,

Chandigarh on 10.3.2015. He was again operated on 17.3.2015 and 25.3.2015.

He was discharged on 6.4.2015. Admittedly, till date the appellant is bed

ridden and cannot move without any support and is continuously under

follow-up treatment in GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh. He was examined by

the Medical Board of GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh and his permanent

disability was assessed to the extent of 75%, which has been taken as 80%

functional disability by the learned Tribunal.

8. In the present case, testimony of PW1 Dr.Ravi Kumar Prenja,

Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics and Member of Disability

Board, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh is vital and relevant extract thereof is

reproduced as under:-

“I have brought the summoned records of Sanjeev

Sharma who was admitted in GMCH Sector 32 Chandigarh
on 24-12-2014 with alleged to have received injures in RSA
(Roadside accident) on 24.12.2014. On examination he was
found to have suffered fractured tibia right side, lacerated
wound over right chin abrasion right front parietal region and
skin avulsion right hand interdigital space. He was put on
ICD (Insertion for right side pleural effusion). Tracheostomy
was done on 31.12.2014 and Pintrectia dressing done. He was
discharged on 3.2.2015. he was readmitted on 10.3.2015 and
he was operated on 25.3.2015 and tibial plating was done. He
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2023.06.01 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
 Page 5 of 7
FAO 8582/2017(O&M)
2023:PHHC:072927

was discharged on 7.4.2015 and called for follow up

treatment on 10.5.2015. He was referred for neurosurgery on
24.4.2015 CT Brain and MRI Brain was advised by
Neurosurgeon and physiotherapy was advised. We
recommend high protein diet to such patients.

On 8-2-2016 the patient Sanjeev Kumar appeared

before Medical Board for assessment of disability. Patient
was diagnosed as a case of post-traumatic brain injury right
hemiparesis with facial muscle weakness right side. The
disability of patient was found to be 75% in relation to whole
body. This disability is permanent in nature. This disability
is a functional disability. Patient will have problem in
walking, stair climbing stairs and activities involving right
hand squatting, standing on affected leg. He needs attendant
for dressing and undressing, bathing, toileting, transfer from
ne place to another. Patient will have problem in doing
bimanual work/hand activities. Ex.P1 is copy of disability
certificate which is signed by me and other Members of
Medical Board. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are copies of discharge and
follow up card respectively issued by GMCH. Due to weak
facial muscles, patient will be having problem in chewing and
sucking. Patient can only be mobilized through wheelchair”.

9. Perusal of the above testimony of PW1 shows that the

appellant has weak facial muscles and will be having problem in chewing and

sucking and can only be mobilized through wheelchair. It is further borne out

that appellant will have problem in walking, climbing stairs and activities

involving right hand, squatting, standing on affected leg and needs attendant

for dressing and undressing, bathing, toileting, transfer from one place to

another and will have problem in doing bimanual work/hand activities.

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI

2023.06.01 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
 Page 6 of 7
FAO 8582/2017(O&M)
2023:PHHC:072927

Basically, the appellant is immobilised and will require assistance for all and

every activity.

10. In view of the above undisputed facts on record, it becomes

clear that the appellant will not be able to resume his former business as a

businessman and fit Dish TV(s). Accordingly, in such circumstances

functional disability of the appellant has to be taken as 100%. In this regard,

reliance may be placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case

of Syed Sadiq etc vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance

Company Law Finder Doc ID # 515167.

11. From the above facts it is also undisputed that the appellant

shall require physiotherapy for the remaining part of his life as such, meagre

amount of Rs.5040/- granted by the ld. Tribunal for physiotherapist is

enhanced to Rs.2 lacs. It is common knowledge that as on date about

Rs.2500/– is the charge for one session of physiotherapy. From the above

facts, it is also clear that the appellant shall be bound to a wheelchair for the

remaining part of his life. Accordingly, transportation charges are enhanced

from Rs.20,000/– to Rs.1 lac. The pain and suffering undergone by the

appellant cannot be estimated in monetary terms. However, as token

compensation for the same, amount of Rs.50,000/– granted by the learned

Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/–. Though present appeal has not been

filed by the Insurance Company, however, as per law laid down in Pranay

Sethi (supra), keeping in view the age of the appellant, future prospects have

to be added @ 25%. Further the ld. Tribunal has correctly applied multiplier

of 14. In view of the above discussion, the compensation payable to the

appellant is reworked as under: -

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI

2023.06.01 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
 Page 7 of 7
FAO 8582/2017(O&M)
2023:PHHC:072927

Sr.No. Head MACT (in Rupees) In appeal (in Rupees)

1 Income 7000 7000
2. Disability 80% 100%
3. Annual income 84000 84000
4. Annual income as 67200 84000
per disability
5 Multiplier 14 14
6. Total loss of 67200x14x12=9,40,800 84000x14=11,76,000/-
income
7 Future prospects @ 30% = 2,82,240/- @25% = 2,94,000/-
8 Total of row 6 and 12,23,040/- 14,70,000/-
7 above.
9 Medical expenses 16,268/- 16,268/-
10. Physiotherapy 5040/- 2,00,000/-
expenses
11. Attendant charges 78,000/- 5,00,000/-
12. Pain and suffering 50,000/- 1,50,000/-
13 Loss of amenities 50,000/- 50,000/-
14. Transportation 20,000/- 1,00,000/-
expenses
15. Healthy diet and 25,000/- 25,000/-
hospitalization
16. Total 14,68,000/- 25,11,,268/-
17. Interest @ 7.5% per annum @ 7.5% per annum

12. Appeal stands allowed in the above terms.

13. Pending Application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

18.05.2023. (Nidhi Gupta)

Joshi Judge

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes

Whether reportable Yes/No

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI

2023.06.01 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document