Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2967 OF 2012

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Alexix Sonier & Anr. .... Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9944-9946 OF 2011

J U D G M E N T

R.K. Agrawal, J.

Civil Appeal No. 2967 of 2012

1)This appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road

Transport Corporation (in short ‘the Corporation’)-the appellant

herein against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2010 passed by

the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2629 of 2003 wherein the appeal filed

by the present appellant has been partly allowed and the sum of

US$125,348.01 awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in

short ‘the Tribunal’) under the category ‘Special Damages’ has been

1

Page 2 disallowed and the remaining part of the award has been maintained.

Civil Appeal Nos. 9944-9946 of 2011

2)The above appeals have been filed by Alexix Sonier through next

friend-Mrs. Dominique Sonier (his mother)- against the

aforementioned order passed by the High Court wherein the appeal

filed by the claimant for enhancement of amount awarded by the

Tribunal has been dismissed.

Brief facts:

3) Alexix Sonier-the claimant is an American citizen. On 08.01.1988,

the claimant was participating in a ‘Peace March’ along with the

citizens of various other countries from Ahmedabad, in the State of

Gujarat to Rajghat, in New Delhi. While participating in the aforesaid

march along with a group of other persons, between Jaipur and Delhi,

near Chandwazi, a bus of the Corporation, bearing Registration No.

RNP-897, which was driven by one Banwari Lal Chowdhary rashly

and negligently, at a very high speed, came and struck the claimant

from behind. As a result of which, the claimant fell down on the road

and became unconscious and sustained injuries in the said accident.

The claimant was taken to the Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur

where it was found that among other injuries he had also received

head injury. Three surgical operations were performed on the

2

Page 3 claimant, however, he did not regain consciousness. On medical

advice, the claimant was shifted to Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital,

Ahmedabad, Gujarat and despite all possible efforts, the condition of

the claimant did not improve. He was discharged from the hospital at

Ahmedabad on 22.04.1988 and shifted by air, under medical

supervision of the doctors, to the United States of America. The

claimant, through his next friend-Mrs. Dominique Sonier-his mother,

filed a claim petition through an authorized person viz., Surendra

Nath Singh Javeria. Mrs. Dominique Sonier-mother of the claimant

also joined the said claim petition through that authorized person.

In the claim petition, after narrating the entire facts of the accident,

injuries as also the treatment undergone, a total sum of Rs.

2,02,36,000/- as compensation was claimed along with interest at the

rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till

the actual date of payment.

4)The various heads under which the claimant had claimed

damages/compensation are as follows:-

(i) For treatment undertaken in India

Rs. 1,50,000/- less Rs. 16411.79 = Rs. 1,33,588.21

(ii) Expenses to be paid to Dr. Chawala for his services + the amount

spent in shifting the patient from Jaipur to Ahemadabad by air: Rs.

3

Page 4 1,40,000/-

(iii) The amount spent for treatment in America = Rs. 13,00,000/-

(iv) The amount proposed to be spent on keeping a nurse at home at

the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month. A sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- is

claimed under this head.

(v) Compensation for loss of earning Rs. 1,68,000/-

(vi) Compensation for loss of future earnings Rs. 1,25,00,000/-

(vii) Compensation for physical and mental suffering Rs. 25,00,000/-

(viii) Compensation for need of a helper Rs. 25,00,000/-

(ix) Compensation for keeping an attendant Rs. 10,00,000/-

(x) Compensation for the loss of earning of his mother who will look

after him Rs. 10,00,000/-

Hence, a total sum of Rs. 2,02,36,000/- was claimed.

5) The Corporation, apart from raising the objections on technical

grounds, denied the manner in which the accident occurred as stated

in the claim petition. A specific stand was taken that the accident

occurred on account of the negligence of the claimant himself and, at

best, it was a case of contributory negligence as the claimant was

trying to cross the road but midway he back tracked and met with an

accident. It was further pleaded that the best medical facilities were

available at Jaipur and there was no need to shift the claimant from

4

Page 5 Jaipur to Ahmedabad without having the full treatment at Jaipur

itself. Also, there was no necessity for the claimant to proceed to

United States of America without proper treatment and the

Corporation was not liable for the condition of the claimant-

Respondent No. 1 herein. Further, the expenses in the claim petition

were very high and exaggerated so also the amount of compensation

claimed.

6) The Tribunal held the claim petition to be in accordance with law

and properly presented. It, however, held that the accident had

occurred on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the

Corporation. The Tribunal, on the basis of evidence on record,

awarded damages as follows:-

“(a) Special Damages Dollar Rupees

(i) Expenses incurred on treatment in India 50,000/-

(ii) Air Fare for Jaipur to Ahmedabad 4,000/-

(iii) Air Fare to Ahmedabad to USA 1,00,000/-

(iv) Medical Expenses in USA

borne by Medi-Cal 125,348.01

(v) Medical expenses in USA borne by parents 25,000.00

(vi) Future expenses on Medical Treatment 4,00,000/-

(vii) Loss of income by Claimant 408,000.00

(viii) Loss of income of attending mother 81,584.00

(ix) Future expenses for management

of attendant 60,000.00

(x) Expenses on Two Commissions 1,61,954/-

(b) General Damages

(i) For pain, sufferance and mental agony 10,00,000/-

(ii) For loss of amenities and enjoyment of life 10,00,000/-

Total $699,932.01 Rs. 27,15,954/-

So Total damages in Rupees: (699932.01 x 14) + 2715954 = Rs. 1,25,15,002.14

In round figure, it is Rs. 1,25,15,002/-“

5

Page 6 The Tribunal further awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per

annum with effect from the date of presentation of the claim petition,

that is, 07.07.1988, after deducting a sum of Rs. 25,000/- paid to the

two Commissioners who were appointed for the recording of evidence

and Rs. 1,16,411.69/- towards the expenses incurred and the

amount paid by the Corporation for the treatment etc., in India to the

claimant.

7)Being aggrieved by the Award dated 29.09.2003, the Corporation

as also the claimant have filed appeals before the High Court. The

High Court gave an opportunity to the parties to arrive at a mutual

settlement regarding the claim but the Corporation declined to

negotiate the matter. It may be mentioned here that on an

application filed by the claimant before the Tribunal seeking

appointment of a Commissioner to the United States of America to

record the statements of 11 persons, the Tribunal, vide order dated

11.07.1990, allowed the said application to record the statements of

11 persons as mentioned in the order and also appointed a

Commissioner for that purpose. It was contended by the appellant

that AW-10A to AW-19 all of whom except AW-18 were not named in

the order dated 11.07.1990. The Commissioner submitted his report

and also the evidence of all the persons recorded by him before the

6

Page 7 Trinbunal. No objection was taken by the Corporation regarding

recording of evidence of persons not named in the order dated

11.07.1990. In fact, the Tribunal, in its order dated 24.06.1991, has

specifically recorded that Mr. Manish Bhandari, learned counsel who

appeared on behalf of the Corporation was asked as to whether he

has any objection to take on record the statements of witnesses but

he did not raise any objection and the statements of witnesses were

taken on record.

8) Before the High Court, the Corporation took an objection that the

evidence recorded by the Commissioner of the persons who were not

named in the order dated 11.07.1990 cannot be taken into

consideration. The Corporation also objected to the order of the

Tribunal awarding damages under the head ‘Special Damages’ in

respect of medical expenses incurred in United States of America

borne by Medi-Cal amounting to US$125,348.01 on the ground that

witness AW-18 had admitted that in the State of California a medical

programme is in force under which persons who were not covered

under any insurance and/or unable to pay their medical expenses, all

their medical expenses will be borne by the State. According to the

Corporation, since the aforesaid amount has been awarded under the

head of medical expenses borne by Medi-Cal, the claimant cannot be

7

Page 8 held entitled to receive the aforesaid amount of US$125,348.01 and

the same is liable to be reduced. It was further submitted before the

High Court that the claimant has failed to prove the negligence on the

part of the driver of the Corporation and the Tribunal has erred in

applying and holding the Corporation liable. The High Court, on

appreciation of evidence on record, upheld the findings of the

Tribunal that the driver of the bus of the Corporation was negligent

and driving the bus rashly and it is not a case of contributory

negligence, however, the High Court deleted the amount of

US$125,348.01 under the head of special damages on the ground

that there is no manner for the courts in India to verify the fact as to

whether or not the aforesaid amount will be paid to the concerned

Medi-Cal department by the claimant and apart from it, no statutory

enactment of any such Scheme was produced before the Court in

evidence of existence of such a Scheme for the Court to take

cognizance of. Moreover, there is no averment in the claim petition

regarding the amount spent by the Medi-Cal Programme and for

reimbursing the aforesaid amount to the said department. The High

Court further held that the statements of the persons recorded by the

Commissioner, pursuant to the order dated 11.07.1990, cannot be

ignored and have to be taken into consideration in view of the fact

8

Page 9 that the Corporation had raised no objection, as would be clear from

the order dated 24.06.1991. The High Court, however, declined to

enhance the amount of award by the Tribunal by stating that it

cannot be said to be inadequate.

9)Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the

parties and perused the records. Since a common question of law

and facts arise in these appeals, they are being disposed of by this

common judgment.

10)Learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the High

Court erred in law in upholding the order of the Tribunal awarding

compensation to the claimant which is highly on the exaggerated side.

He further submitted that the claimant had not claimed any damages

in terms of US Dollars and claim was made only in Indian currency,

therefore, the award of compensation by the Tribunal as upheld by

the High Court in respect of certain claims in US Dollars was not

justified in law. He further submitted that there was no question of

applying the currency exchange rate of Rs. 14 per US Dollar as the

claim itself has not been made in it. He further contended that the

driver of the bus of the Corporation was not at fault and he was not

driving the bus rashly or speedily and in fact, if at all, the accident

was a result of contributory negligence, and therefore, the

9

Page 10 Corporation is not liable to pay any amount as damages or

compensation.

11)Learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, submitted

that the High Court was not justified in deleting the medical expenses

in USA borne by Medi-Cal, as in the State of California, it is

government policy that medical treatment is to be given by the State

to such persons who are unable to afford and further such persons

are not reimbursed by anybody else, however, if any reimbursement

of any medical expense is received, it has to go to the State. He

further submitted that the claimant was entitled to the amount given

by the Tribunal under expenses borne by Medi-Cal. He further

submitted that the claimant was also entitled for the amount to be

spent for helper/attendant to be engaged as the claimant had

suffered brain injury and have been confined to bed. According to

him, as the expenses have been incurred and are to be incurred in US

dollars, exchange rate which was prevalent at the time of the passing

of the award by the Tribunal ought to be given. In support of this, he

placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Sanjay Verma vs.

Haryana Roadways (2014) 3 SCC 210.

12)With regard to the plea taken by the Corporation that the

statement of the persons recorded by the court appointed

10

Page 11 Commissioner, who were not named in the order dated 11.07.1990

cannot be taken on record is concerned, we find that though the

Commissioner has recorded evidence of persons viz., AW-10A to AW-

19 except AW-18 who were not named in the order dated 11.07.1990,

yet, when the Commissioner filed the report along with the evidence

so recorded, a specific question was put to the counsel of the

Corporation as to whether he has any objection but he did not raise

any objection as would be clear from the order dated 24.06.1991

passed by the Tribunal which for ready reference is reproduced below:

“On behalf of the applicant Shri Bhartiya and on behalf of R.S.R.T.C

Shri Manish Bhandari and Commissioner Shri Bhag Chand Jain

are present. Today Shri Bhag Chand Jain, court commissioner

presented an application annexing the statements which he recorded

of 10 witnesses after visiting America. Shri Manish Bhandari was

asked whether he has any objection to take on record the statement

of witnesses Dr. E.Scott Conner, Dr. Thomas Z. Weber, Mr. Courtney

Billups, Mr. Kent Furguson, Mr. Walter Joseph Babine, Mr. Jan

Robert, Mrs. Nancy Brooks, Miss Maureen Mckenzie, Mrs Carole

Kellogg and Mr. Ivan Sonier. Mr. Ivan Sonier which was recorded in

his presence. He did not raise any objection. Therefore the aforesaid

statements of witnesses are taken on record and exhibited as AW 10A

and AW-19. The applicant concludes his depositions.”

In this view of the matter, it is not now open for the Corporation to

raise this plea.

13)So far as the question as to whether the accident in question

which occurred on 08.01.1988 was a result of contributory negligence

or the driver of the bus of the Corporation was driving rashly and

speedily is concerned, we find that the driver of the bus had denied

11

Page 12 that any accident in fact had taken place, however, the site plan (Exh.

52), which has been taken into consideration by the High Court,

shows that the bus was driven at a sufficiently high speed and skid

marks of the tyres of bus are about 32 ft. in length which were

because of the speed of bus. The speed of the bus was quite high and

at the relevant time it cannot be stopped immediately. The High

Court has, therefore, correctly held that the bus was driven rashly

and negligently and at a very fast speed. Therefore, the question of

accident being a result of contributory negligence does not arise. So

far as the question regarding the amount of damages/award in

respect of Medi-Cal, which has been deleted by the High Court is

concerned, we are of the considered opinion that in the State of

California, there is a Scheme under which persons who are not

covered under any insurance scheme like claimant are extended

medicare facilities for which no payment is to be made by such

persons and only the amount received as reimbursement has to be

handed over to the Medi-Cal Department. In the present case, we

find that the Medi-Cal Department has already incurred expenses for

the treatment of the claimant. It will be very difficult to keep a track,

as observed by the High Court, as to whether the amount awarded

under this head would be paid over to the Medi-Cal Department or

12

Page 13 not, and therefore, in our considered view, the High Court was

justified in modifying the award of the Tribunal by disallowing

US$125,348.01 under the category ‘Special Damages’ relating to the

Medi-Cal.

14)However, we find that the claimant had claimed a sum of Rs. 10

lakhs for keeping an attendant for the entire life. Neither the Tribunal

nor the High Court had given any amount under the said head. We

find that this Court, in the case of Sanjay Verma (supra), has held

that where any claim is made towards cost of attendant from the date

of accident till he remains alive and it is also proved, then that claim

is justified. In paragraph 22 of Sanjay Verma (supra) this court has

held as follows:

“22. In the claim petition filed before the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal the claimant has prayed for an amount of Rs 2,00,000 being

the cost of attendant from the date of accident till he remains alive.

The claimant in his deposition had stated that “he needs one person

to be with him all the time”. The aforesaid statement of the claimant

is duly supported by the evidence of PW 1 who has described the

medical condition of the claimant in detail. From the aforesaid

materials, we are satisfied that the claim made on this count is

justified and the amount of Rs 2,00,000 claimed by the claimant

under the aforesaid head should be awarded in full. We order

accordingly.”

Following the principles laid down by this Court in Sanjay Verma

(Supra) reproduced above, we accordingly hold that the claimant is

entitled for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs plus interest at the rate of 6 % per

13

Page 14 annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the date

of actual payment towards expenses to be incurred for keeping an

attendant for the rest of his life to look after him.

15)We further find that even though the claimant had not claimed

any amount in US dollars in the claim petition and the entire claim

was in the Indian currency, the amount awarded by the Tribunal in

respect of some of the items under head ‘Special Damages’ has been

given in terms of US dollars and the exchange rate has been applied

at the rate of 14 per US dollar. This has been done on the specific

finding that the claimant himself had claimed exchange rate of Rs. 14

per US dollar. Even though this Court in the case of United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others . Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and

Others (2002) 6 SCC 281 has held that there would be three relevant

dates for the purpose, viz., the date on which the amount became

payable, the date of the filing of the suit and the date of the judgment

and it would be fairer to both the parties to take the latest of these

dates, namely, the date of passing of the decree as the relevant date

for applying the conversion rate. Yet, where the prayer for passing a

decree is indicated in rupees, there would not be any dispute

regarding what rate of conversion to be applied. As in the present

case, we find from the claim petition that claimant had claimed the

14

Page 15 amount only in Indian rupees and there is no specific mention of US

dollars, there is no question of applying any exchange rate. The

Tribunal, while awarding compensation under the head ‘Special

Damages’ in terms of US dollars when converted into Indian rupees,

we find that the amount comes much less than the amount claimed

by the claimant in the claim petition. Therefore, there is no question

of any further reduction in the said amount.

16)We are also of the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal

as modified by the High Court and further modified by us by

awarding a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs towards the cost of helper/attendant

is appropriate and does not call for any further enhancement. In view

of the aforementioned discussions, Civil Appeal No. 2967 of 2012 is

dismissed. However, Civil Appeal Nos. 9944-9946 of 2011 are partly

allowed. Interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of

accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties

shall bear their own costs.

...…………….………………………J.

(RANJAN GOGOI)

.…....…………………………………J.

(R.K. AGRAWAL)

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 8, 2015.

15

Page 16 ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.12 SECTION XV

(For judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 2967/2012

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TPT CORPN. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

ALEXIX SONIER & ANR. Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A. Nos. 9944-9946/2011

Date : 08/10/2015 These appeals were called on for pronouncement

of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya, AOR

Mr. Niraj Bobby Paonam, Adv.

Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR

Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal pronounced the reportable

judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi

and His Lordship.

Civil Appeal No. 2967 of 2012 is dismissed and Civil Appeal

Nos. 9944-9946 of 2011 are partly allowed. Interlocutory

applications, if any, are disposed of in terms of the signed

reportable judgment.

(R.NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA)

Court Master Court Master

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

16