CHAUS TAUSHIF ALIMIYA vs. MEMON MAHMMAD UMAR ANWARBHAI

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) J U D G M E N T 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 Deepak Singh Date: 2023.02.17 09:51:50 IST Reason: Mohammad   Sokat   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “Sokat”) 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):

2

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

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)

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)

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 1 Company   Limited   and   Another ,   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 2 Kajal   vs.   Jagdish   Chand   and   Others ,   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:

17

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:

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