Cannot Expect Claimant To Preserve Every Bill: P&H High Court Enhances Accident Compensation From Rs 95,000 To Rs 7.7 Lakhs

"It is well settled that in cases of injury, a pragmatic approach is to be adopted while assessing medical expenses, as a claimant cannot be expected to preserve each and every bill during the course of treatment and recovery." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that tribunals must adopt a practical and humane approach while assessing medical expenses in motor accident claims, as an injured person fighting for recovery cannot be expected to preserve every single medical invoice.

A single-judge bench of Justice Harkesh Manuja observed that the assessment of a victim's income and expenses requires reasonable guesswork that should not be detached from reality, while drastically enhancing the compensation awarded to a permanently disabled labourer.

The appellant, a 40-year-old labourer, sustained grievous head and chest injuries, along with a fractured collarbone, in a motor vehicular accident on November 22, 2005. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Gurgaon, found the offending vehicle's driver guilty of rash and negligent driving but awarded a paltry sum of Rs. 95,000 as compensation. Aggrieved by the gross inadequacy of the award, especially considering his 25% permanent disability and prolonged hospitalization, the claimant approached the High Court seeking enhancement.

The primary question before the court was whether the absence of strict documentary proof of income and medical bills justifies a drastic reduction in compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court was also called upon to determine whether future prospects can be awarded in cases of permanent disability arising out of motor accidents, as opposed to cases of fatal accidents.

Established Framework For Personal Injury Claims

Before calculating the enhancement, the High Court drew guidance from the landmark Supreme Court decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, which meticulously laid down the comprehensive heads for awarding compensation in personal injury cases. The bench noted that in serious injury matters involving permanent disability, courts are mandated to award damages under both pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads, actively assessing the long-term impact on the victim's livelihood.

"It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, the compensation will granted under any of the heads... relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities..."

Strict Proof Of Income Not Mandatory In Summary Proceedings

Dealing with the Tribunal's restrictive approach towards assessing the victim's income, the court emphasised that Motor Accident Claims are summary proceedings where strict evidentiary standards do not apply. Justice Manuja observed that the mere absence of documentary proof cannot be a ground to deny just compensation. Relying on the Supreme Court's dictum in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Jakir Hussein v. Sabir, the bench noted that while minimum wage notifications serve as a yardstick, they are not absolute, and tribunals must employ realistic guesswork reflecting the cost of living.

"In the absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of deceased should not be totally detached from reality."

"Mere absence of documentary proof cannot be a ground to deny just compensation, particularly when the nature of injuries and period of treatment clearly indicate loss of income."

Future Prospects Applicable In Permanent Disability Cases

The court then addressed the issue of future loss of earnings, noting that the medical board had assessed the appellant's permanent disability at 25%, which the court translated to a 20% functional disability for computing compensation. Applying the legal principles laid down in Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and the Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the High Court ruled that victims suffering permanent disability are legally entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects. Consequently, a 30% addition was made to the claimant's assessed income.

"...in cases where a claimant suffers disability due to a motor vehicle accident, compensation may be awarded not only for the future loss of income but also towards future prospects."

Courts Must Be Pragmatic While Assessing Medical Expenditure

Turning to the reimbursement of treatment costs, the High Court strongly criticized the Tribunal for restricting the medical expenses to a mere Rs. 20,000 simply because of minor discrepancies in some bills. The bench noted that the victim had suffered a severe head injury with a midline shift and a malunited clavicle fracture, necessitating prolonged, multi-hospital treatment. The court emphasized that when the factum of treatment and expenditure is established by witnesses, tribunals must not take a hyper-technical view of missing invoices.

"It is well settled that in cases of injury, a pragmatic approach is to be adopted while assessing medical expenses, as a claimant cannot be expected to preserve each and every bill during the course of treatment and recovery."

Non-Pecuniary Damages Must Reflect The Gravity Of Trauma

The bench further addressed the gross inadequacy of the Tribunal's award under the head of pain and suffering. Relying on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in K. Murlidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi, the High Court held that non-pecuniary damages must be commensurate with the mental and physical agony endured by the victim. Taking into account the prolonged immobilization, recurrent loss of consciousness, and the permanent restriction of the claimant's left shoulder movement, the court drastically enhanced the compensation under this head to Rs. 4,00,000.

"...the award of compensation under non-pecuniary heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospitalization, and the mental and physical agony endured by the claimant."

Relying on the precedents set in Smt. Supe Dei v. National Insurance Company and Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, the High Court held that the Tribunal's grant of 7.5% interest was inequitable. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, comprehensively enhancing the total compensation from Rs. 95,000 to Rs. 7,72,135 with interest at 9% per annum, and directed that failure to pay the amount within three months would trigger a penal interest rate of 12%.

Date of Decision: 27 March 2026