/2023 INSC 0091/
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
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):
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
suffering Rs. 75,000/­
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   Another 1
,   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   Others 2
,   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
(including physiotherapy) Rs. 9,72,000/­
(­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
nourishment charges Rs.1,00,000/­
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
nourishment charges Rs. 1,00,000/­
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