Pranav B Prem

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has awarded ₹1.3 crore as compensation to a road accident victim who suffered severe injuries and was deprived of just compensation for over two decades. The court strongly observed that the judicial system itself was responsible for the delay in deciding the rightful compensation, emphasizing the need for introspection and self-assessment.

Background of the Case

The case pertained to an accident that occurred on June 18, 2000, when Gagandeep @ Monti, a 16-year-old at the time, was hit by a rashly driven truck. The impact caused him severe injuries, leading to permanent disability, including a pelvic fracture, urethral injury, and amputation of his left leg. A claim petition was filed, and in 2004, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹7.62 lakh in compensation. However, the claimant appealed against the meager amount.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth, while hearing the case, made a strong remark on the delay in awarding compensation: “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 involve painful or sensitive subject matter.”

Court’s Observations on Injuries and Disability

The court reviewed medical testimonies and records that revealed the severity of the injuries. It was noted: “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.”

Medical experts confirmed that the claimant required multiple surgeries over the years, had suffered permanent disability, and faced ongoing medical complications. The court stated: “Although disability as stated by the doctor ‘may be 86% permanent disability,’ the proved facts on record clearly speak that the claimant has suffered injuries to the internal organs, and urinary bladder is 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.”

Delay in Appeal and Legal Precedents Considered

The High Court noted that despite the appeal being admitted in 2005, it had remained pending for nearly 20 years, stating: “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.”

While enhancing the compensation, the court relied on various Supreme Court judgments, including State of Haryana & Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur & Ors. (2003), which stressed that compensation must be just and should neither be excessive nor inadequate: “Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be just, and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit, but the same should not be a pittance.” The court also referenced Pranay Sethi’s case, which discussed the addition of future prospects in cases of young victims: “In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.”

Final Compensation and Breakdown

Considering multiple factors such as loss of future earnings, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and other expenses, the court determined the final compensation amount: “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, the total compensation amount to which the appellant/claimant is held entitled is ₹1,31,47,200/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty-One Lakh Forty-Seven Thousand Two Hundred only).”

Cause Title: Gagandeep @ Monti v. Sukhbir Singh and others

Case No: FAO-2851-2005(O&M) 

Bench: Justice Sanjay Vashisth

[Read/Download order]