JAKIR HUSSEIN versus SABIR & ORS.
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 460, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 460 
JAKIR HUSSEIN 
V. 
SABIR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2006 of 2015) 
FEBRUARY 18, 2015 
[V.GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 -
Compensation -
Claimant-driver sustained grievous injuries whereby his 
right arm suffered compound fractures preventing him 
from performing his regular work as a driver -
0 Assessment of compensation -
Held: It is just and 
reasonable to consider his daily wage at Rs. 150/day as 
he was a driver of the motor vehicle which is skilled job 
-
Though doctor assessed permanent disability of 
claimant at 55% since his hand was completely crushed 
E and deformed, loss of earning due to permanent disability 
may be treated as 100% loss caused to him since he 
would never be able to work as a driver again -
Rs. 
2 lakhs awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.2 
lakhs awarded towards future medical expenses - Rs.1.5 
F lakhs awarded towards pain and suffering and Rs. 1.50 
lakhs awarded towards loss of amenities and enjoyment 
of life - Award also passed on account of special diet, 
attendant expenses during the period of treatment and 
towards transportation. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is just and reasonable to consider the 
appellant's daily wage at Rs.150/- per day (Rs.4,500/-
460
JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR 
461 
per month i.e. Rs.54,000/- per annum) as he was a A 
driver of the motor vehicle which is a skilled job. The 
Tribunal has wrongly determined the loss of income 
during the course of his treatment at Rs.51,000/- for 
a period of one year and five months. The same is 
enhanced to Rs.76,500/- (Rs.4,500 X 17 months). The B 
appellant was medically examined in order to prove 
his medical condition and the percentage of 
permanent disability. The doctor who treated him 
stated that the appellant has one long injury from his 
arm up to the wrist. Due to this injury, the appellant C 
had great difficulty to move his shoulder, wrist and 
elbow and pus was coming out of the injury even 
two years after the accident and the treatment taken 
by him. The doctor further stated in his evidence that 0 
the appellant got delayed joined fracture in the 
humerus bone of his right hand with wiring and 
nailing and that he had suffered 55% disability and 
cannot drive any motor vehicle in future due to the 
same. He was once again operated upon during the E 
pendency of the appeal before the High Court and 
he was hospitalised for 10 days. In view of the 
doctor's evidence, the Tribunal and the High Court 
erroneously took the extent of permanent disability 
at 30% and 55% respectively for the calculation of F 
amount towards the loss of future earning capacity. 
However, the appellant was a driver and driving the 
motor vehicle was the only means of livelihood for
himself as well as the members of his family. The 
High Court also clearly observed that his right hand G 
was completely crushed and deformed. When it 
comes to loss of earning due to permanent disability, 
the same may be treated as 100% loss caused to the 
appellant since he would never be able to work as 
H
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A a driver again. The contention of the respondent 
Insurance Company that the appellant could take up 
any other alternative employment is no justification 
to avoid their vicarious liability. Thus, by applying the 
appropriate multiplier, the total loss of future 
B earnings of the appellant would be at Rs.54,000 X 16 
= Rs.8,64,000/-. [Paras 14, 15] [473-F-H; 474-A-H] 
2. The facts, circumstances and evidence on record 
clearly showed that a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- was 
c incurred during medical treatment of the appellant. 
Keeping in mind his medical condition and future 
medical needs and requirements, Rs.2,00,000/- is 
awarded towards future medical treatment & 
incidental expenses in favour of the appellant. A sum 
D of Rs.1,50,000/- is granted towards the pain, 
suffering and trauma which will be undergone by the 
appellant throughout his life. Further, as he is not in 
a position to move freely, an award of Rs.1,50,000/-
is awarded towards loss of amenities & enjoyment 
E of life and happiness. Further amount of Rs.20,000/-
is awarded towards special diet, Rs.40,000/- towards 
attendant expenses during the period of treatment 
and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation. A sum of 
Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards costs incurred 
F during pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal and the 
High Court erred in granting interest rate at only 7% 
p.a. and 8% p.a. respectively on the total 
compensation amount. The interest @ 9% p.a. is
awarded on the compensation. [Paras 16, 18 and 19] 
G 475-D-E; 476-A-F] 
H 
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343: 
2010 (13) 
SCR 179; Sar/a Verma & Ors. v. Delhi 
Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 
(5) SCR 1098; Rekha Jain & Anr. 
v. 
National

JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR 
463 
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 389; Municipal A 
Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar 
Tragedy (2011) 14 SCC 481: 2011 (16) SCR 1 - relied on. 
R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited (1995) 
1 SCC 551: 1995 (1) SCR 75; Nizam's Institute of Medical B 
Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1: 2009 
(9) SCR 313; Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 
274:2002 (4) 
Suppl. SCR 499; National Insurance 
Company Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed (2007) 2 SCC 349: 2007 C 
(2) SCR 117 -
referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
1995 (1) SCR 75 
ref erred to. 
Para 6 
D 
2009 (9) SCR 313 
referred to. 
Para 7 
2010 (13) SCR 179 
relied on. 
Para 8 
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 499 
referred to. 
Para 10 
E 
2007 (2) SCR 117 
referred to. 
Para 12 
2009 (5) SCR 1098 
relied on. 
Para 15 
(2013) a sec 389 
relied on. 
Para 17 
F 
2011 (16) SCR 1 
relied on. 
Para 18 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
2006 of 2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2013 of G 
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in 
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3414 of 2010. 
V. K. Sidharthan for the Appellant. 
H
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Dr. Meera Agarwal, Amarjeet D. Singh, R. C. Mishra 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. 
This appeal has been filed by the appellant 
against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2013 passed 
in M.A. No. 3414 of 2010 by the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh at Indore, wherein the High Court partly allowed 
C the appeal of the appellant by modifying the award 
passed by the MACT, Mandsor, M.P., in claim case No. 
3 of 2009 dated 29.07.2010. 
3. 
The relevant facts of the case are stated as 
D under: 
On 12.11.2008 at about 6.39 p.m., Jakir 
Hussein, the appellant herein, was driving a Tempo 
bearing registration No. MP-14-G-0547 from Krishi Upaj 
E Mandi, Mandsor to Multanpura village, Madhya Pradesh. 
A few others were also riding along with the appellant, 
namely, Santosh, Kumari Krishna, Smt. Paipa Bai etc. 
While the appellant was on the way, a tractor bearing 
registration No. MP 14-K- 4886 which was driven by 
F Sabir-respondent no.1 herein, in rash and negligent 
manner hit the appellant's tempo which was coming from 
the opposite direction with enormous force. Due to the 
impact of the accident, the appellant sustained grievous 
injuries. The right arm of the appellant had severe 
G compound fractures preventing him from performing his 
regular work as a driver hereafter. At the time of the 
said accident, the appellant was earning Rs.4,500/- per 
month
by working as a driver. 
H 
4. The appellant filed Claim Petition No. 3 of 2009
JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
465 
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before A 
the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Additional First 
Member, Mandsor, Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal 
determined the permanent disability suffered by the 
appellant on account of the motor vehicle accident at 
30% and his monthly income was taken at Rs.3,000/-
B 
for the purpose of assessing annual income of the 
appellant to compute his loss of future earnings. On the 
basis of the annual income, his future loss of income 
due to permanent disability suffered by him was 
estimated at Rs.1,72,800/- and loss of income at C 
Rs.51,0001··. Medical expenses was estimated at 
Rs.1,80,000/-. The total compensation of Rs.4,38,000/-
with an interest at the rate of 7% p.a. was awarded to 
the appellant by the Tribunal as against a claim of 0 
Rs.8,80,000/- made by him. 
5. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal regarding 
inadequate compensation, the appellant filed M.A. No. 
3414 of2010 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh 
at Indore. The High Court opined that the income of E 
appellant has been taken on the lower side by the 
Tribunal and determined the same at Rs.4,000/- per 
month. The High Court after re-determination of the 
compensation held that the appellant is entitled to an 
enhancement of Rs.1,77,200/- towards permanent F 
disability and addition of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and 
suffering. In addition to that amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/ 
- was awarded towards
medical expenses. The High 
Court has further awarded Rs.40,000/- towards medical G 
expenses during the pendency of the appeal. Further, it 
has awarded interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the 
enhanced compensation. Being unsatisfied with the 
enhanced compensation by the High Court, the appellant 
filed this appeal. 
H
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
6. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, Mr. 
Parameshwara, who is appointed to assist this Court as 
amicus curiae has contended that the compensation 
awarded by both the Tribunal and the High Court is wholly 
inadequate. It is submitted by him that the High Court has 
B committed a serious error in law in not awarding just and 
reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant by 
taking various factual aspects such as permanent disability 
suffered by him, medical evidence and keeping in view the 
law on the relevant aspects for quantifying just and 
C reasonable compensation both under the heads of 
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. It is further urged 
by him that on the motor vehicle accident caused by the 
respondent-driver on account of rash and negligent driving 
0 of the vehicle, the appellant has become permanently 
disabled due to which he will not be able to get suitable 
employment and lead a normal life in future. It is further 
contended by him that the future medical treatment and 
care of the appellant is very much necessary which will 
E also be on the higher side. In cases where the claimant 
suffering from either total or partial permanent disablement, 
the term 'compensation' used under Section 166 of the 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would not only include the 
expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the 
F amount likely to be incurred by the appellant for future 
medical
treatment/care and necessary assistance on 
account of permanent disablement caused to him on 
account of grievous injury of loss of his right arm in the 
said accident. Reliance was placed by the learned amicus 
G curiae on the decision of this Court in the case of R.D. 
Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited1, 
wherein it was held as under:-
H 
1 (1995) 1 sec 551
JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
"9.Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of 
compensation payable to a victim of an accident, 
the damages have to be assessed separately 
as pecuniary damages and special damages. 
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim 
has actually incurred and which are capable of 
being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-
pecu n ia ry damages are those which are 
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical 
calculations. In order to appreciate t.wo concepts 
pecuniary damages may include expenses 
incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; 
(ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of 
trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary 
damages are concerned, they may include (i) 
damages for mental and physical shock, pain 
and suffering, already suffered or likely to be 
suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate 
for the loss of amenities of life which may include 
a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the 
claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) 
damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., 
on account of injury the normal longevity of the 
person 
concerned 
is 
shortened; 
(iv) 
inconvenience, 
hardship, 
discomfort, 
disappointment, frustration and fr!ental stress in 
life." 
467 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
7. It is further contended by him that the monthly 
income of the appellant has been erroneously taken as G 
Rs.3,000/- by the Tribunal and Rs.4,000/- by the High 
Court when he
was actually earning Rs.4,500/- per month 
while working as the driver. The learned amicus curiae 
placed reliance upon the case of Nizam's Institute of 
H
468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka2, wherein, 
the three-Judge Bench of this Court while dealing with a 
case arising out of the complaint filed under the 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, enhanced the 
compensation awarded by the National Consumer 
B Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs.1.5 lacs to Rs.1 
crore. The observations made by the Bench at para 39 
can appropriately be applied to the case on hand, wherein 
it is stated as under:-
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
"88. We must emphasize that the Court has to 
strike a balance between the inflated and 
unreasonable demands of a victim and the 
equally untenable claim of the opposite party 
saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the 
victim does not, and should not, come in the 
way of making a correct assessment. but if a 
case is made out. the Court must not be chary 
of awarding adequate compensation. The 
"adequate compensation" that we speak of, must 
to some extent, be a rule of the thumb measure, 
and as a balance has to be struck, it would be 
difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned. 
89.lt must also be borne in mind that life has its 
pitfalls and is not smooth sailing all along the 
way (as a claimant would have us believe) as 
the hiccups that invariably come about cannot 
be visualized. Life it is said is akin to a ride on 
a roller coaster where a meteoric rise is often 
followed by an equally spectacular fall. and the 
distance between the two (as in this
very case) 
is a minute or a yard. 
<:r,c 1
JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR 
469 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
90.At the same time we often find that a person 
A 
injured in an accident leaves his family in greater 
distress, vis- '-vis a family in a case of death. In 
the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a 
feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in 
time, compels the family to move on. The case 
of an injured and disabled person is, however, 
more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, 
helplessness, despair and often destitution enures 
every day. The support that is needed by a 
severely handicapped person comes at an 
enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, 
not only on the victim but even more so on his 
family and attendants and the stress saps their 
energy and destroys their equanimity." 
(emphasis laid by this Court) 
B 
c 
D 
8. Further, with regard to award just and reasonable 
compensation both under pecuniary and non-pecuniary 
damages to the victims of motor-vehicle accidents, the E 
learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision 
of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar 
& Anr. 3, wherein it was held as under:-
"5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 
F 
('Act' for short) ..makes it clear that the award 
must be just. which means that compensation 
should, to the extent possible, fully and 
adequately restore the claimant to the position 
prior to the accident. The object of awarding 
G 
damages is to make good the loss suffered as 
a result of wrong done as far as
money can do 
3 (2011)1 sec 343 
H
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. 
The court or tribunal shall have to assess the 
damages objectively and 
exclude from 
consideration any speculation or fancy, though 
some conjecture with reference to the nature of 
B 
disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A 
person is not only to be compensated for the 
physical injury, but also for the loss which he 
suffered as a result of such injury, This means 
c 
D 
that he is to be compensated for his inability to 
lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal 
amenities which he would have enjoyed but for 
the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as 
he used to earn or could have earned." 
(emphasis laid by this Court) 
9. It is further contended by the learned Amicus 
Curiae that the appellant was working as a driver and 
getting salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. However, the 
E Tribunal proceeded to determine his income at Rs.36,000/ 
- per annum solely on the basis that there was no 
evidence on record to prove the claim of the appellant 
that he was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month as a driver 
of the motor vehicle. Therefore, in the absence of any 
F cogent evidence, the Tribunal and the High Court ought 
to have taken the appellant's annual income at Rs.54,000/ 
- as he was working as a driver of the motor vehicle till 
the accident occurred for the purpose of determination 
of compensation towards the loss of future earnings of 
G the
appellant, as he had 100% permanent disablement 
having regard to the nature of work he was doing at the 
time of the accident. Accordingly, it should be at 
Rs.54,000/- per annum for proper quantification of future 
H loss of earnings as he had suffered 100% functional
disability. 
JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
10. It is further contended by him that the award 
passed by the Tribunal for future medical expenses was 
wholly inadequate. Reliance was placed on the decision 
471 
A 
of this Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal B 
Singh4, wherein this Court held that in a case where 
injury to a victim requires periodical medical expenses, it 
is not possible for a fresh award to be passed or to 
review a previous award when the medical expenses are 
incurred after finalisation of the compensation C 
proceedings. It was further held that the only alternative 
is that at the time of passing of the final award, the 
Tribunal/Court should consider such eventuality and fix 
the compensation under the above said head accordingly. 
Therefore, it is submitted by him that it will be just and D 
reasonable for this Court to award a further sum of 
Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant for his future treatment. If 
the said amount is deposited in fixed deposit, the interest 
accruing on it will take care of future medical treatment 
and other ancillary expenses. 
E 
11. With regard to the pain, suffering and trauma 
which have been caused to the appellant due to his 
crushed hand, it is contended that the compensation 
awarded by the Tribunal was meagre and insufficient. It F 
is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the 
hospital for a period of over three months. It is not 
possible for the courts to make a precise assessment
of 
the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose arm 
got crushed and has suffered permanent disability due G 
to the accident that occurred. The appellant will have to 
struggle and face different challenges as being 
4 (2003) 2 sec 274 
H
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A handicapped permanently. Therefore, in all such cases, 
the Tribunals and the courts should make a broad 
estimate for the purpose of determining the amount of 
just and reasonable compensation under pecuniary loss. 
Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a 
B young man of 33 years. For the rest of his life, the 
appellant will suffer from the trauma of not being able to 
do his normal work of his job as a driver. Therefore, it 
is submitted that to meet the ends of justice it would be 
just and proper to award him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
C towards pain, suffering and trauma caused to him and a 
further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities 
and enjoyment of life. 
12. On the other hand, Dr. Meera Agarwal, the 
D learned counsel for the respondent no.3 - The New India 
Assurance Company Ltd herein contended that this Court 
has held in a catena of cases that the percentage of 
loss of earning capacity should correspond to the 
percentage of loss of functional/physical disability, if the 
E loss of functional disability is 55%, the loss of earning 
capacity should also be 55% of the income of the injured/ 
claimant. In support of the above contentions, reliance 
was placed by her on the decision of this Court in the 
F case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mubasir 
Ahmed5• 
13. It is further contended on behalf of the Insurance 
Company that the amount of compensation awarded by 
the Tribunal was
just and reasonable, still the High Court 
G in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has erroneously 
taken a generous view and enhanced the amount of 
compensation and therefore, does not warrant for 
H 
5 (2007) 2 sec 349
JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
473 
enhancement of compensation as claimed by the A 
appellant. 
14. We have carefully examined the facts of the 
case and material evidence on record in the light of the 
rival legal contentions urged before us by both the learned 
B 
counsel on behalf of the parties to find out as to whether 
the appellant is entitled for further enhancement of 
compensation? 
We have perused the impugned 
judgment and order of the High Court and the award of 
the Tribunal. After careful examination of the facts and C 
legal evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the 
appellant was working as a driver at the time of the 
accident and no doubt, he could be earning Rs.4,500/-
per month. As per the notification issued by the State 
Government of Madhya Pradesh under Section 3 of the D 
Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a person employed as a 
driver earns Rs.128/- per day, however the wage rate as 
per the minimum wage notification is only a yardstick 
and not an absolute factor to be taken to determine the 
compensation under the future loss of income. Minimum E 
wage, as per State Government Notification alone may 
at times fail to meet the requirements that are needed 
to maintain the basic quality of life since it is not inclusive 
of factors of cost of living index. Therefore, we are of F 
the view that it would be just and reasonable to consider 
the appellant's daily wage at Rs.150/- per day (Rs.4,500/ 
- per month i.e. Rs.54,000/- per
annum) as he was a 
driver of the motor vehicle which is a skilled job. Further, 
the Tribunal has wrongly determined the loss of income G 
during the course of his treatment at Rs.51,000/- for a 
period of one year and five months. We have to enhance 
the same to Rs.76,500/- (Rs.4,500 X 17 months). 
15. Further, with respect to the permanent disablement H
474 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A suffered by the appellant, Mr. K. Parameshwar, the learned 
amicus curiae, has rightly submitted that the appellant was 
examined by Dr. P.K. Upadhyay in order to prove his 
medical condition and the percentage of permanent 
disability. The doctor who has treated him stated that the 
B appellant has one long injury from his arm up to the wrist. 
Due to this injury, the doctor has stated that the appellant 
had great difficulty to move his shoulder, wrist and elbow 
and pus was coming out of the injury even two years 
after the accident and the treatment taken by him. The 
C doctor further stated in his evidence that the appellant 
got delayed joined fracture in the humerus bone of his 
right hand with wiring and nailing and that he had suffered 
55% disability and cannot drive any motor vehicle in future 
D due to the same. He was once again operated upon during 
the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and he 
was hospitalised for 10 days. The appellant was present 
in person in the High Court and it was observed and 
noticed by the High Court that the right hand of the 
E appellant was completely crushed and deformed. In view 
of the doctor's evidence in this case, the Tribunal and the 
High Court have erroneously taken the extent of 
permanent disability at 30% and 55% respectively for the 
calculation of amount towards the loss of future earning 
F capacity. No doubt, the doctor has assessed the 
permanent disability
of the appellant at 55%. However, it 
is important to consider the relevant fact namely that the 
appellant is a driver and driving the motor vehicle is the 
only means of livelihood for himself as well as the 
G members of his family. Further, it is very crucial to note 
that the High Court has clearly observed that his right 
hand was completely crushed and deformed. In the case 
of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra), this Court 
specifically gave the illustration of a driver who has 
H
JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
475 
permanent disablement of hand and stated that the loss A 
of future earnings capacity would be virtually 100%. 
Therefore, clearly when it comes to loss of earning due 
to permanent disability, the same may be treated as 100% 
loss caused to the appellant since he will never be able 
to work as a driver again. The contention of the respondent 
B 
Insurance Company that the appellant could take up any 
other alternative employment is no justification to avoid 
their vicarious liability. Hence, the loss of earning is 
determined by us at Rs.54,000/- per annum. Thus, by · 
applying the appropriate multiplier as per the principles C 
laid down by this Court in the case of Sar/a Verma & 
Ors. v. Delhi Transport .Corporation & Anr. 6, the total 
loss of future earnings of the appellant will be at Rs.54,000 
X 16 = Rs.8,64,000/-. 
16. From the facts, circumstances and evidence on 
record it is clear that a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- was incurred 
during medical treatment of the appellant. Keeping in mind 
D 
his medical condition and future medical needs and 
requirements, we further award Rs.2,00,000/- towards 
E 
future medical treatment & incidental expenses in favour 
of the appellant by applying the legal principles laid down 
by this Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh 
(supra). 
F 
17. Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. 
v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.7, wherein this Court 
examined catena of cases and
principles to be borne in 
mind while granting compensation under the heads of (i) 
pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on. 
G 
Therefore, as per the principles laid down in the case of 
Rekha Jain & Anr. (supra) and considering the suffering 
6 (2009) e sec 121 
7 (2013) a sec 389 
H
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A undergone by the appellant herein, and it will persist in 
future also and therefore, we are of the view to grant 
Rs.1,50,000/- towards the pain, suffering and trauma which 
will be undergone by the appellant throughout his life. 
Further, as he is not in a position to move freely, we 
B additionally award Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities 
& enjoyment of life and happiness. 
18. We further award an amount of Rs.20,000/-
towards special diet, Rs.40,000/- towards attendant 
C expenses during the period of treatment and Rs.20,000/-
towards transportation. 
19. Since, the claim of the appellant has been pending 
for several years before the courts, we are of the view to 
0 
award a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards costs incurred during 
pendency of the appeal. 
20. As regards the rate of interest to be awarded on 
the compensation awarded in this appeal, we are of the 
E view that the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in 
granting interest rate at only 7% p.a. and 8% p.a. 
respectively on the total compensation amount instead 
of 9% p.a. by applying the decision of this Court in 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of 
F Victims of Uph.aar Tragedy8. Accordingly, we award the 
interest @9% p.a. on the compensation determined in 
the present appeal. 
21. In the result, the appellant shall be entitled to 
the compensation figured out in the following table 
G under different heads: 
H a (2011)14 sec 481
SL.No. 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
Particulars 
Amount of 
compensation 
Loss of future income 
due to disability 
Rs.8,64,000/-
Loss of income during 
period of treatment 
Rs.76,500/-
Pain and suffering 
Rs.1,50,000/-
Medical Expenses 
Rs.2,00,000/-
Attendant charges 
during the period of 
treatment for 17 months 
Rs.40,000/-
Transportation charges 
during the period of 
treatment 
Rs.20,000/-
Special diet and 
nutrition as advised by 
the doctor during the 
period of treatment 
Rs.20,000/-
Permanent Disability/ 
loss of amenities, 
happiness and enjoyment 
of life 
Rs.1,50,000/-
Future medical expenses 
Rs.2,00,000/-
Expenses during 
pendency of appeal 
Rs.40,000/-
TOTAL 
Rs.17,60,500/-
477 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Thus, the total compensation payable to the 
appellant by the respondent Insurance Company will 
be Rs.17,60,500/- as per amount awarded against 
different heads mentioned above in the table with 
interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation awarded 
B by this Court from the date of filing of the claim 
petition till the date of payment. 
22. Since the claim petition has been pending 
in the courts for the last 6 years, we direct the 
C Insurance Company to either pay the compensation 
awarded in this appeal by way of demand draft or 
deposit the same before the concerned MACT within 
four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of 
this Judgment and submit the compliance report for 
D the perusal of this Court. 
23. 
When this matter was listed, neither the 
counsel on record nor the arguing counsel on behalf 
of the appellant was present on a number of dates 
E of hearing despite granting several opportunities to 
him. Therefore, keeping in view Article 39A of the 
Constitution of India, this Court vide order dated 
19.01.2015 appointed Mr. K. Parameshwara, as 
amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant to assist 
F us to determine just and reasonable compensation. 
In pursuant to the same, the learned amicus curiae 
has given his valuable assistance to this Court by 
addressing the arguments and submitting the written 
submissions. Therefore, it is just and proper for this 
G Court to direct the Legal Services Authority, State
of Madhya Pradesh to pay a nominal fee of 
Rs.10, 0001- to him by sending a demand draft in 
the name of 'K. Parameshwar' within four weeks 
H

JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
479 
from the date of receipt of the copy of this A 
Judgment. The Registry is directed to send a copy 
of this judgment to the Legal Services Authority, 
State of Madhya Pradesh to comply with our order. 
The appeal is allowed in the above said B 
terms. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal allowed.