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