Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation to ₹16.6 Lakh for Accident Victim, Recognizes Underassessment of Pain, Suffering, and Amenities
Case Name: Joginder Dahiya v. Vikesh Kumar Sharma and Others
Date of Judgment: October 9, 2025
Citation: FAO-8039-2016
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudeépti Sharma
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to an accident victim from ₹14.93 lakh to ₹16.6 lakh, holding that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had undervalued the petitioner’s entitlement under non-pecuniary heads such as pain, suffering, and loss of amenities. Justice Sudeépti Sharma ruled that compensation must be just and fair, aiming to restore the claimant, as far as money can, to the position prior to the accident. The Court also increased the interest rate from 7% to 9% per annum, in line with recent Supreme Court rulings.
Summary: The appeal arose from an award dated July 30, 2016, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, in a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant had sustained serious injuries in a road accident on July 9, 2015, and was awarded ₹14.93 lakh with 7% interest. Dissatisfied, he sought enhancement, arguing that the Tribunal had not properly considered the extent of pain, suffering, and post-treatment difficulties.
Justice Sharma referred to Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, where the Supreme Court outlined compensation principles for disability and injury cases, emphasizing that pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages must reflect the physical, emotional, and economic impact of injury. The Court also cited National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, reaffirming the inclusion of reasonable amounts under conventional heads and periodic upward revisions for inflation.
The evidence showed that the appellant was hospitalized twice — first at Max Hospital, Delhi, and later at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Rohini — but no permanent disability certificate was produced. The Court noted that although the Tribunal had correctly assessed medical expenses and income loss, it had inadequately compensated under pain, suffering, special diet, and attendant charges, and granted nothing for loss of amenities.
Recalculating the award, Justice Sharma fixed the total compensation at ₹16.6 lakh under the following heads: medical expenses ₹14,00,000; loss of income ₹20,000; pain and suffering ₹70,000; attendant charges ₹50,000; transportation ₹20,000; loss of amenities ₹50,000; and special diet ₹50,000. The enhanced amount of ₹1.67 lakh would carry 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization.
Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, modifying the Tribunal’s award and directing the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced compensation within two months, with interest at 9% per annum. The Tribunal was instructed to disburse the amount directly into the claimant’s bank account.