The High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirms that only permanent disabilities or those likely to persist justify enhancement in compensation under Motor Accident Claims; temporary disabilities, as established by medical testimony, do not warrant increase. This ruling upholds existing precedent and provides binding authority for all subordinate courts within jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FAO/2223/2021 of KAMLESH Vs GURPREET SINGH ALIAS GURMEET SINGH AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010751872021 |
| Date of Registration | 16-10-2021 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the approach of considering only permanent/continuing disability for compensation |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Claims |
| Questions of Law | Whether temporary disability suffered by a claimant can be ground for enhancement of compensation in motor accident cases? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that since the disability of the claimant was certified as temporary by medical evidence with potential for improvement over time, there was no valid ground for enhancement of compensation. Temporary disabilities, as opposed to permanent or long-lasting ones, do not justify increased compensation unless otherwise shown by reliable evidence which is absent here. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant sought enhancement of compensation due to a 10% disability resulting from injuries. Medical evidence revealed that the disability was temporary and likely to improve. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Motor Accident Claims Tribunals outside jurisdiction |
| Follows | Continues the approach that only permanent or persistent disabilities justify enhancement of compensation |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that compensation enhancement in motor accident claims depends on the nature and duration of disability, not merely the percentage.
- A 10% disability, if certified as temporary and likely to improve, does not automatically entitle a claimant to increased compensation.
- The Court expressly relies on medical testimony to differentiate between temporary and permanent disabilities.
- Lawyers must ensure that evidence of permanent impairment is present when seeking higher compensation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The counsel for the appellant argued for enhancement based on the alleged 10% disability suffered by the claimant.
- The Court considered the award and the testimony of PW-4, Dr. K.K. Bansal, who issued the disability certificate.
- The disability certificate (Ex.P1) indicated the disability was “temporary in nature,” with the likelihood of improvement over time.
- The Court concluded that no ground for enhancement existed because the disability was not found to be permanent or persistent.
- Accordingly, the appeal seeking compensation enhancement was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Sought enhancement of compensation on grounds that the income of the injured/appellant was considered on the lower side.
- Argued that the appellant suffered a 10% disability.
Respondent:
- No arguments by the respondent are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The appellant, injured in a motor vehicle accident, appealed for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The main ground was that the Tribunal assessed both the income and extent of disability too conservatively. During the proceedings, it was established through medical evidence that the claimant had suffered 10% disability, but this was classified as temporary and subject to likely improvement.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment does not detail interpretation or discussion of specific statutory provisions, but applies established principles for assessment of compensation under Motor Accident Claims law, specifically highlighting the significance of the permanence and impact of disability as demonstrated by medical evidence.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
The judgment does not introduce or discuss any procedural innovations.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms existing law regarding the assessment of compensation in motor accident claims, especially concerning the distinction between temporary and permanent disability.