The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a temporary disability, which is likely to improve over time according to medical evidence, does not constitute sufficient ground for enhancement of compensation. The decision upholds existing precedent and reinforces the Tribunal’s wide discretion in assessing compensation based on the nature and duration of disability. This ruling is binding within the state and serves as persuasive authority elsewhere, particularly relevant to motor accident compensation law.
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 |
| Bench | Single Bench (Justice Deepak Gupta) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Compensation |
| Questions of Law | Whether a temporary disability justifies enhancement of compensation in accident cases? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that, where medical evidence shows the disability is temporary and likely to improve with time, enhancement of compensation is not justified. The Tribunal rightly considered the testimony and documentary evidence on record, notably the medical evidence (PW-4, Dr. K.K. Bansal and Ex.P1), in assessing the quantum. The appellate court found no ground to disturb this discretion. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court primarily relied on the medical evidence adduced before the Tribunal, especially testimony clarifying the temporary nature of disability. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The claimant suffered 10% disability assessed by PW-4, Dr. K.K. Bansal, as temporary and possibly improving over time per Ex.P1. Appellant sought enhancement, arguing the Tribunal undervalued the income and failed to properly consider disability’s effect. The court found the Tribunal’s assessment justified, given the temporary nature of the injury. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | Tribunal’s reliance on contemporaneous medical testimony and assessments |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that only permanent or long-lasting disabilities justify enhancement of compensation.
- Medical evidence showing non-permanence of injury will be decisive against increasing awards.
- Lawyers should ensure the longevity and consequences of a disability are clearly established to ground claims for enhancement.
- Reliance on expert testimony regarding prognosis is key.
- Appeals based solely on temporary impairment are unlikely to succeed absent special circumstances.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the appellant’s principal contention: the Tribunal erroneously took the income on the lower side and underappreciated the 10% disability.
- It reviewed the evidence, especially the testimony of the doctor (PW-4, Dr. K.K. Bansal) and the disability certificate (Ex.P1), which clarified the temporary nature of the disability.
- The prognosis provided by the medical expert indicated the possibility of improvement over time.
- The court concluded that since the disability was neither permanent nor likely to continue, no ground existed for enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
- The discretionary power exercised by the Tribunal, being rooted in medical and documentary evidence, was upheld.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
- Contended that the income of the injured/appellant was taken on the lower side.
- Argued that the appellant had suffered 10% disability.
Respondent:
- Relied on the contents of the award.
- Submitted (through medical evidence) that the disability was temporary and likely to improve over time.
Factual Background
The appellant suffered injuries in an accident and was awarded compensation by the Tribunal, with a finding of 10% disability. The disability certificate (Ex.P1) issued by Dr. K.K. Bansal (PW-4) clarified that the disability was temporary in nature, and could improve with the passage of time. The appellant appealed for enhancement, arguing the Tribunal undervalued the income and discounted the impact of the injury.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment references the Tribunal’s assessment powers in motor accident compensation cases.
- The decision turns on interpretation of medical evidence within the statutory framework for accident compensation; no particular statutory provisions or interpretation issues are detailed in the text.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court reaffirmed established principles regarding compensation for temporary versus permanent disability.