Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |    

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Victims of Car Accident with Permanent Disabilities

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has enhanced the compensation awarded to victims of a car accident who suffered permanent disabilities. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Justice Abahy S. Oka and Hon'ble Justice Vikram Nath, arose from Civil Appeal Nos. 1241-1242 of 2023, originating from SLP (Civil) Nos. 7281-7282 of 2022.

The appellants, Chaus Taushif Alimiya and Saikh Taufik Mohammad Sokat, were traveling together in a Wagon-R car when it met with an accident in 2012, resulting in severe injuries to both individuals. They filed claims for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Tribunal awarded compensation based on the injuries and disabilities suffered by the appellants. Dissatisfied with the Tribunal's order, they appealed to the High Court, which partially allowed the appeals and enhanced the compensation. However, seeking further enhancement, the appellants approached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 7281 of 2022 (Alimiya) and Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 7282 of 2022 (Sokat).

The Supreme Court examined the various heads of claims made by the appellants and carefully considered their medical conditions. After detailed deliberation, the Court approved and enhanced the compensation under several heads.

Under the head of "future medical expenses," the Court found the awarded amount for appellant Alimiya to be inadequate and increased it to Rs. 9,72,000/-, taking into account the need for long-term physiotherapy. For appellant Sokat, the future medical expenses were revised to Rs. 50,000/-.

Transportation charges were also revised. While the High Court had awarded Rs. 10,000/- for both appellants, the Supreme Court deemed it just to award Rs. 50,000/- to Alimiya and Rs. 25,000/- to Sokat, considering their respective disabilities.

The Court further increased the compensation for pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects, and attendant charges, based on the appellants' medical conditions and the precedent set by previous judgments. Additionally, special diet and nourishment charges were awarded to both appellants, and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was granted to each appellant for litigation expenses.

Justice Vikram Nath stated, "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 with the nature of suffering and pain, its extent, length, and duration."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and awarded additional compensation to the appellants along with the same interest as awarded by the High Court. The decision sets a precedent for fair and just compensation for victims of accidents resulting in permanent disabilities.

Date of Decision: February 16, 2023

CHAUS TAUSHIF ALIMIYA ETC.   vs MEMON MAHMMAD UMAR

Similar News