Non­Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1241­1242 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 7281­7282 of 2022)

CHAUS TAUSHIF ALIMIYA ETC. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MEMON MAHMMAD UMAR

ANWARBHAI & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH,J.

Leave granted.

2. Both the appellants, namely Chaus Taushif Alimiya

(hereinafter referred to as “Alimiya”) and Saikh Taufik

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

Mohammad Sokat (hereinafter referred to as “Sokat”)

Deepak Singh
Date: 2023.02.17
09:51:50 IST
Reason:

were travelling together in the same vehicle Wagon­R Car

1
bearing registration No. GJ­18­AM­7711. The said

vehicle met with an accident on 22.08.2012, resulting

into severe injuries to both the appellants.

3. M.A.C.P. No. 638 of 2012 was filed by Sokat

claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/­ whereas

M.A.C.P. No. 122 of 2013 was filed by the other

appellant Alimiya who claimed compensation of Rs.

50,00,000/­ under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,

1988. In the accident, Sokat suffered a permanent

disability of 70% whereas Alimiya suffered permanent

disability of 95%. The Tribunal vide order dated

04.08.2017 awarded compensation as per the following

tables:

M.A.C.P. No. 122 of 2013 (Claimant: Tausif Alimiya):

1 Rs. 6,15,600­00 Future loss of income

2 Rs. 90,453­00 Medical bills.
3 Rs. 3,00,000­00 Future Medical treatment
expenses.
4 Rs. 10,000­00 For pain, shock & suffering

2
5 Rs. 10,000­00 For Transportation charges
6 Rs. 10,26,053­00 Total amount of compensation
7 Rs. 3,00,000­00 Amount awarded for future
medical expenses is to be
deducted from counting interest
on total amount of Rs.
10,26,053/­
8 Rs. 7,26,053­00 9% per annum interest would be
calculated upon amount of Sr.
No. 8 as mentioned.

M.A.C.P. No. 638/2012 (Claimant:Taufik Mohmad

Sokat):

1 Rs. 4,53,600­00 Future loss of income

2 Rs. 94,419­00 Medical bills.
3 Rs. 18,000­00 Actual loss of income.
4 Rs. 10,000­00 For pain, shock & suffering
5 Rs. 10,000­00 For Transportation charges
6 Rs. 5,86,019­00 Total amount of compensation

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the

appellants preferred appeals before the High Court

bearing First Appeal No. 3022 of 2018 by Alimiya and

First Appeal No. 3234 of 2021 by Sokat. The High Court

partly allowed both the appeals and enhanced the

3
compensation adding future prospects by 50% and also

enhancing the income per month from Rs. 2,000/­

determined by the Tribunal to Rs. 3,000/­ per month as

claimed by the appellants before it. It also enhanced

amount under other heads as would be apparent from

the table given hereunder prepared by the High court in

its order:

First Appeal No. 3022 of 2018, the appellant Alimiya

would be entitled to compensation as under­

Rs. 3000/­ (income per month)

+ Rs. 1,500/­ (50% prospective income)
= Rs. 4,500/­ x 95% (disability)
= Rs. 4,275/­ x 12 = 51,300/­ x 18 (multiplier)
= Rs. 9,23,400/­ (Future Loss of income)

Future Loss of income Rs. 9,23,400/­

Medical bills Rs. 90,453/­
Future Medical expenses Rs. 3,00,000/­
Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 1,25,000/­
Transportation charges Rs. 10,000/­
Total Compensation Rs. 14,48,853/­

4
 First Appeal No. 3234 of 2021, the appellant Sokat

therein would be entitled to compensation as under­

Rs. 3000/­ (income per month)

+ Rs. 1,500/­ (50 % prospective income)
= Rs. 4,500/­ x 70% (disability)
= Rs. 3,150/­ X 12= Rs 37,800/­ x 18 (multiplier)
= Rs. 6,80,400/­ (Future Loss of income)

Future Loss of income Rs. 6,80,400/­

Medical bills Rs. 94,419/­
Pain, shock and Rs. 75,000/­
suffering
Transportation charges Rs. 10,000/­
Actual loss of income Rs. 18,000/­
Total Compensation Rs. 8,77,819/­

5. Aggrieved by the same, appellants are before this

Court claiming enhancement in compensation. Civil

Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 7281 of 2022 is filed by Alimiya

whereas Civil Appeal@ SLP (C) No. 7282 of 2022 is filed

by Sokat. Enhancement has been claimed under the

following different heads by the appellants:

5
i) monthly income of Rs. 3,000/­ is too less in today’s

time, and therefore, should be enhanced to Rs. 10,000/­

per month for Alimiya and Rs. 6,500/­ per month for

Sokat;

ii) future prospects of Rs. 8 lacs should be awarded to

Alimiya and Rs. 10 lacs should be awarded to Sokat;

iii) future medical expenses should be enhanced to Rs.

9,72,000/­ (for physiotherapy) and Rs.2,00,000/­ (for

conveyance) in respect of Alimiya. In respect of Sokat, it

should be enhanced to Rs. 50,000/­ and Rs. 25,000/­,

respectively.

iv) for pain, suffering and shock suffered by Alimiya,

compensation should be enhanced to Rs. 15 lacs

whereas for Sokat it should be enhanced to Rs. 10 lacs.

v) under the head of ‘loss of amenities to life’, Rs. 50,000

should be awarded to both the appellants.

6
vi) for loss of marriage prospects, an amount of Rs. 3

lacs each be awarded to both the appellants.

vii) for shortened life expectancy, Alimiya may be

awarded Rs. 10 lacs whereas Sokat may be awarded Rs.

5 lacs;

viii) Alimiya maybe awarded attendant charges of Rs.

10,80,000/­. No claim for Sokat on account of

Attendant charges has been made;

ix) for special diet and nourishment, both the appellants

may be awarded Rs. 1,00,000/­ each; and

x) as against litigation expenses, both the appellants

may be awarded Rs. 50,000/­ each.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent Insurance Company submits that the High

Court has given a fair and reasonable award

accommodating compensation under different heads

admissible under law and no further enhancement is

7
required. The appeals are without merit and liable to be

dismissed. In respect of the claims made by the

appellants, it has been submitted by the learned counsel

that the monthly income of Rs. 3,000/­ was claimed by

the appellants before the High Court. The said figure was

accepted and as such there is no question of any further

enhancement by this Court in terms of monthly income.

Rest of the claims now being made are contrary to the

pleadings and the submissions advanced before the

Courts below.

7. It is next submitted that High Court has already

awarded benefit of future prospects to the tune of 50 per

cent for both the appellants. This claim also deserves to

be rejected.

8. In so far as the claims of attendant charges, special

diet and conveyance charges, learned counsel for the

respondent submitted that the compensation amount of

8
Rs. 3,00,000/­ awarded by the High Court towards

medical expenses also takes care of the above claims.

Such claims are thus not tenable. In so far as transport

charges are concerned, the High Court has awarded Rs.

10,000/­ to both the appellants. The claims made under

various other heads by the appellants are not

sustainable in law. It is, thus, submitted that the

appeals deserve to be dismissed.

9. Before proceeding to deal with the claims made, it

would be appropriate to reproduce the findings of the

Tribunal with respect to the medical conditions of both

the appellants which has not been assailed.

10. The Tribunal while deciding issue no. 2 regarding

the entitlement and the quantum of compensation, has

given detailed finding in paragraph no. 20.1 regarding

the disabilities suffered by both the appellants. The

same is reproduced hereunder:

9
“20.1. Now, while assessing and calculating the
amount of compensation, the learned Advocate Mr.
S.G. Shah for the opponent No. 3 has raised an
objection regarding the percentage of disability and
submitted that the detailed cross examination has
been made by him for the insurance company of the
doctors who have issued the disability certificate to
the claimant Tausif and claimant Taufik. The learned
Advocate has submitted that the doctor namely,
Nayan Pancholi, who is not a specialist of Urology has
opined the disability of kidney to the tune of 25% and
has assessed the disability of spleen to the tune of
45% and drawn the attention of this Hon’ble Tribunal
that the said doctor has admitted the aforesaid facts
in his cross examination. But, while considering the
disability certificate of witness namely, Taufik I am of
the firm opinion that due to the accident he was
compelled to remove the spleen and one kidney
from the body and, therefore, this is no any
hesitation to believe that body as a whole he is having
permanent disability of 70%. Whereas, the claimant
Tausif who is suffering from paraplegia and he
sustained the injury of fracture of spinal cord of D­
10 & D­11 tibia Fibula and dislocation of Telus, he
is unable to live his life as a common man and is
10
 completely in such a bad condition that even he
cannot pass urination and stools at his own and
has also lost control over the essential parts of the
body, therefore, I have no hesitation to believe that
the Tausif is having the permanent disability of
95% body as a whole therefore, I am not is agreement
with the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate
Mr. S.G. Shad for the insurance company and I deem
it fit to assess the disability of claimant Tausif at 95%
and Taufik at 70%. These disability certificates are
produced here vide Exhs. 35 & 37, respectively.”

11. We find from the judgment of the High Court as

recorded in paragraphs No. 7 and 8 that the appellants

had claimed enhancement of monthly income of Rs.

3,000/­ only, which the High Court has accepted along

with 50% future prospects.

12. The High Court awarded Rs. 3,00,000/­ towards

future medical expenses for the appellant Alimiya.

However, no such future medical expenses have been

awarded to the other appellant Sokat.

11
13. The High Court also enhanced the compensation

under the head ‘pain, shock and suffering’ from Rs.

10,000/­ to Rs. 1,20,000/­ for Alimiya and Rs. 75,000/­

for Sokat.

14. With respect to medical conditions, the findings as

recorded by the Tribunal are not challenged either by the

Insurance Company or the owner of the vehicle.

15. Having considered the submissions advanced by the

learned counsel for the parties and the material on

record, each of the claims raised by the appellants are

dealt with hereinafter.

16. The claim for enhancement of income cannot be

accepted. The appellants themselves had claimed Rs.

3,000/­ before the High Court which claim had been

accepted. The High Court has held that it was just and

reasonable considering the year when the accident had

taken place and also relying upon the contention raised

12
by the appellants. The High Court had also awarded 50

per cent addition under the head ‘future prospects’ and

therefore, any claim in respect of the same cannot be

entertained.

17. With regard to the claim for future medical expenses

for the appellant Alimiya who has suffered 95% disability

and would require physiotherapy services throughout

his life, the compensation awarded by the High Court at

Rs. 3,00,000/­ appears to be less. In this connection,

reference may be made to a recent judgment of this

Court dated 06.07.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4648

of 2022, Abimanyu Pratap Singh vs. Namita Sekhon &

Another, wherein this Court awarded charges for

physiotherapist at the rate of Rs. 150/­ per day and

applied the multiplier of 18 considering the age of

appellant therein. In the present case also, the

multiplier applied is 18. Therefore, the charges for

13
future medical expenses (physiotherapy) would come to

Rs. 9,72,000/­ which this Court approves as just and

proper.

18. Insofar as the second appellant Sokat is concerned,

the claim for future medical expenses maybe for follow­

up treatment etc. is only Rs. 50,000/­ which also this

Court finds to be justified and approves it.

19. The claim for conveyance for the appellant Alimiya

is Rs. 2,00,000/­ and for the appellant Sokat it is Rs.

25,000/­. The Tribunal as well as the High Court

awarded Rs. 10,000/­ only to both the appellants under

the head ‘Transportation charges’. Considering the

medical condition of appellant Alimiya who had suffered

95% disability and appellant Sokat who suffered 70%

disability would require extra use of transportation even

for going to short distances. It would be just and proper

to award Rs. 50,000/­ and Rs. 25,000/­ to the

14
appellants Alimiya and Sokat, respectively as

transportation charges.

20. Under the head ‘pain and suffering’, the High Court

awarded Rs. 1,25,000/­ and Rs. 75,000/­ to the

appellants Alimiya and Sokat, respectively. Considering

the findings on the medical conditions of both the

appellants, the amount awarded is less. Award of such

compensation cannot be based on any mathematical

formula, but has to be commensurate to the nature of

suffering and pain, its extent, length and duration. In

the facts of the present case, amount of Rs. 5,00,000/­

appears to be just for the appellant Alimiya and Rs.

2,50,000/­ to the appellant Sokat under the aforesaid

head. The same is accordingly approved.

21. Under the head ‘loss of marriage prospects’, no

compensation has been awarded. Reliance was placed

upon the judgment in the case of Master Ayush vs.

15
Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance

Company Limited and Another1, where this Court

awarded Rs. 3,00,000/­ as loss of marriage prospects to

a child who had suffered total disability at an age of

about 5 years at the time of the accident. The appellants

considering their medical conditions, deserve to be

suitably compensated for under the head ‘loss of

marriage prospects’. Appellant Alimiya be awarded Rs.

3,00,000/­ under this head, whereas appellant Sokat be

awarded Rs. 1,50,000/­.

22. Appellant Alimiya, because of his medical condition,

cannot even stand or walk on his own and would

therefore, require an attendant all his life. In the case of

Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and Others2, this Court

awarded Rs. 5,000/­ per month for whole time

attendant. Applying the multiplier of 18, an amount of

1 (2022) 7 SCC 738

2 (2020) 4 SCC 413
16
Rs. 10,80,000/­ would be just and proper compensation

under the aforesaid head.

23. Both the appellants, considering their medical

conditions, would be requiring special diet supplements

which may be assessed at Rs. 1,00,000/­ each. In this

connection, reference may be made to the judgment of

this Court dated 18.10.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.

7605 of 2022 between Divya vs. The National

Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

24. The compensation, thus, due and admissible to the

appellants as discussed above may be summarized

hereunder:

Appellant­Alimiya:

Sr.No. Heads Amount

1 Future Medical Expenses Rs. 9,72,000/­
(including physiotherapy) (­Rs. 3,00,000/­)
= Rs. 6,72,000/­
2. Transportation charges Rs.50,000/­
(­10,000/­)
= Rs. 40,000/­
17
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 5,00,000/­
(­Rs. 1,25,000/­)
=Rs. 3,75,000/­
4. Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 3,00,000/­
5. Attendant charges Rs. 10,80,000/­
6. Special diet and Rs.1,00,000/­
nourishment charges

25. Thus, we award additional sum of Rs. 25,67,000/­

to the appellant Alimiya along with the same interest as

awarded by the High Court.

Appellant­Sokat:

Sr.No. Heads Amount

1 Future Medical Expenses Rs. 50,000/­
2. Transportation charges Rs.25,000/­
(­Rs. 10,000/­)
Rs. 15,000/­
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 2,50,000/­
(­Rs. 75,000/­)
=Rs. 1,75,000/­
4. Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 1,50,000/­
5. Special diet and Rs. 1,00,000/­
nourishment charges

18
26. Thus, we award additional sum of Rs. 4,90,000/­ to

the appellant Sokat along with the same interest as

awarded by the High Court.

27. The appeals are allowed accordingly.

28. There shall be no order as to costs.

29. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

…………..........................J.
[ABAHY S. OKA]

………….........................J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 16, 2023.

19