The High Court reaffirmed that even without permanent disability, courts must award fair and enhanced compensation under special heads (pain and suffering, special diet, transportation, attendant charges) in line with Supreme Court precedent. This judgment consolidates settled law, ensuring tribunals do not mechanically restrict compensation. It stands as binding authority within the Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction for personal injury cases arising out of motor accidents.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Ankush Shokeen and another Vs Vinod and others |
| CNR | PHHC011157462017 |
| Date of Registration | 29-11-2017 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Mrs. Justice Sudeeti Sharma |
| Court | High Court of Punjab & Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench (Mrs. Justice Sudeeti Sharma) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab & Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident/Personal Injury (Tort/Compensation Law) |
| Questions of Law | Whether compensation for grievous injuries in motor accidents must be enhanced even in absence of permanent disability and how “just compensation” should be calculated under the Motor Vehicles Act. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court, relying on Supreme Court guidelines, held that “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act requires a holistic award that includes non-pecuniary damages like pain, suffering, special diet, transportation and attendant charges, even if no permanent disability is established. The presence or absence of permanent disability affects loss of income calculation, but does not limit compensation on other heads for serious injuries. Meager awards on these heads are liable to interference and enhancement in appeal. The Court specifically invoked binding precedents to direct substantial increases over the Tribunal’s award for both appellants, with a lump sum added strictly towards special and non-pecuniary damages. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Motor Vehicles Act’s mandate for “just compensation”; Supreme Court guidelines on assessment and quantification of damages; structured formulae for non-pecuniary heads; flexible award when permanent disability is absent; multiplier method for permanent disability (not applied here); period and rate of interest on enhanced amounts. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellants sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident. No permanent disability was established for either appellant. The Tribunal awarded compensation considered inadequate under several heads (pain, suffering, special diet, attendant, transportation). Medical evidence and testimony confirmed the nature and seriousness of injuries. Appeals sought enhancement of awarded sums. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate tribunals and courts within Punjab & Haryana’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, and can be cited before the Supreme Court and tribunals elsewhere |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that absence of permanent disability does not preclude substantial compensation under heads of pain, suffering, special diet, transportation, and attendant charges.
- Clear directive that meager awards for non-pecuniary damages in serious injury cases can and should be enhanced on appeal.
- Applies and restates binding Supreme Court guidelines for computation and heads of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including when loss of future income is irrelevant.
- Endorses awarding lump sum “over and above” Tribunal awards for non-pecuniary heads where justified by the nature and extent of injuries.
- Specifies interest at 9% p.a. is appropriate on enhanced compensation, in line with Supreme Court authority.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court confined the scope strictly to the quantum of compensation and not to other factual aspects.
- It began by detailing the settled principles from Supreme Court authorities, especially Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, concerning the assessment heads in personal injury cases (pecuniary and non-pecuniary).
- Emphasized the distinction between permanent disability (relevant for loss of future income) and grievous injuries (still attracting substantial compensation under other heads).
- Adopted Pranay Sethi’s guidelines for determining conventional sums on various compensation heads, including escalation protocol.
- Applied the principles in Erudhaya Priya, particularly regarding due consideration of medical evidence, and clarified that disabilities with no income loss still justify enhanced awards for pain, suffering, and life impact.
- Meticulously examined the medical reports and testimony (for both appellants), ascertaining that no permanent disability was proved, but the injuries were grievous and required prolonged treatment.
- Found the Tribunal’s awards for non-pecuniary damages to be “meager” and therefore enhanced those by granting specific lump sum additions for each appellant.
- Directed interest on the enhanced amount at 9% per annum, basing this order on Supreme Court decisions.
- Ordered expeditious deposit and disbursal procedures.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side.
- Enhancement was sought in line with latest Supreme Court law.
Respondent No.3 (Insurance Company):
- Defended the Tribunal’s award as fair and proper.
- Argued no case for enhancement was made out.
Factual Background
The appellants were grievously injured in a motor vehicle accident on 28.02.2015. Their respective medical evidence and testimony were adduced. No permanent disability was established for either. The Tribunal awarded compensation on various heads, but the appellants contended the amounts for pain and suffering, special diet, transportation, and attendant charges were inadequate. The present appeal was for enhancement only of the quantum, with focus on fair compensation commensurate with injuries suffered.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment discussed sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, focusing on the principles behind “just compensation” and the method of assessment under those provisions. The Court interpreted these sections in line with Supreme Court authorities, especially:
- The structure for compensation heads (special and general damages).
- The proper use of multipliers (not applicable here due to the absence of permanent disability).
- The permissible and appropriate quantum for non-pecuniary damages, guided by revisited, non-quantum-centric criteria set by Supreme Court precedent.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows binding Supreme Court authority, reiterating established law regarding computation and enhancement of compensation in personal injury cases under the Motor Vehicles Act.