MV Act | 'Victim Deprived Of Compensation For Over 20 Yrs, Our System Responsible For Delay': Punjab & Haryana HC Awards ₹1.3 Crore As Damages

Observing that the judicial system needs self-assessment as it was "responsible" for a delay of 24 years to decide "just compensation" to a road accident victim suffering pelvic fracture urethral injury, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has awarded the claimant Rs.1.3 Crores in compensation.

The Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.7 lakhs awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.1.3 Crores to the victim who was permanently disabled in a road accident.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth in his order said, "This case is a locus classicus wherein the injured-victim has been deprived of just compensation for more than two decades (a total of more than 24 years), awarding of which is the primary objective of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Unfortunately, responsibility for such a delay cannot be fixed on anyone except our system, which requires introspection and self- assessment, to equip itself for making an early decision, especially in the cases which involves painful or sensitive subject matter."

Considering the testimonies of doctors, the Court noted that the victim had been under consistent treatment since the day of the accident in 2000 to 2022.

"The doctor also made it clear that overall normal life and other normal activities of the patient like sexual activities etc. would definitely get affected due to erectile dysfunction associated with pelvic fracture urethral injury," it added.

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal whereby in 2004 the victim was granted a total compensation of Rs.7,62,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.

During the pendency of the appeal, an application by the claimant was filed to direct the medical Superintendent of PGI, Chandigarh to reassess the permanent disability of the claimant.

The high court further noted that the claimant moved the appeal before the high court which was admitted in 2005 and since then there had been no decision "on one pretext or the other". 

After examining the submissions the Court noted various landmark judgements of the Apex Court "for deciding the just amount of compensation that the claimant is entitled to, especially in the light of the legislative intent of the legislature while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."

Reliance was placed on State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and others (2003) to underscore that statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be bonanza; not a source of profit, but the same should not be a pittance.

The Court observed that measures of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar and special features, if any.

 Justice Vashisth highlighted that the age of the injured at the time of the accident was 17 years, the multiplier of 18 is applicable and the total loss of future earnings, by applying the multiplier of 18, would be Rs. 09,07,200.

Further, the Court observed that although disability as stated by the doctor “maybe 86 % permanent disability” but the proved facts on record clearly speak that the claimant has suffered injuries to the internal organs and urinary bladder are almost damaged and injury suffered in the intestine led to the amputation of the left leg. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation payable to the claimant/appellant, the disability would be taken as 100% physical disability.

 The judge took note of certain parameters like Loss of future earnings of the victim, Medical Expenses (including hospitalization charges), Future medical expenses, Attendant charges, Special diet, Transportation, pain and suffering, Loss of enjoyment Loss of amenities and marital bliss.

Consequently, the Court said, "keeping in mind the aims and objects of the beneficial legislation" i.e. to provide adequate relief to the victim or the dependant family members, total compensation amount to which appellant/claimant is held entitled is Rs.1,31,47,200/-(Rupees One crore thirty-one lacs forty seven thousand and two hundred only)".

Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate For respondent No.3/National Insurance Company Ltd.

Title: Gagandeep @ Monti v. Sukhbir Singh and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 75

Click here to read/download the order