Appeal 1: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2568/2026 filed by Wasim Akram (appellant) against the High Court judgment dated 10‑09‑2024 (Misc. First Appeal No. 102507 of 2018).
Appeal 2: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3129/2026 filed by Musaddiq Ahmed (appellant) against the High Court judgment dated 10‑09‑2024 (Misc. First Appeal No. 102508 of 2018).
Both appeals concern motor accident compensation arising from a collision on 21‑09‑2015 at ~08:10 PM near Jewel Park Hotel, Hemmady Village, involving a bus (Reg. KA‑19/C‑6259) owned by Respondent 1 and insured by Respondent 2, and a motorcycle (Reg. KA‑47/K‑0457) ridden by the appellants.
The Supreme Court order dated 12‑May‑2026 (New Delhi) was signed by J. (Sanjay Karol) and J. (Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh).
Parties Involved
Appellants: Wasim Akram (motorcycle rider) and Musaddiq Ahmed (pillion rider).
Respondent 1: Bus owner (identified only as Respondent 1).
Respondent 2: Insurance company (identified only as Respondent 2).
Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction.
Counsel: Learned counsel for appellants and for Respondent 2 (insurance company).
Issues / Allegations / Violations
Both appellants alleged that the High Court’s assessment of notional monthly income (Rs 15,000) was unreasonably low, given documentary evidence of overseas employment as professional drivers in Kuwait earning between Rs 67,200 and Rs 84,000 per month.
They contended that the functional disability resulting from the accidents (amputation of right leg, severe elbow injury, pelvic fractures, etc.) rendered them 100 % unfit to drive, warranting full loss of future earnings.
Respondent 2 argued that in the absence of bank statements or tax returns, the High Court’s income assessment was fair and that a 95 % medical disability does not automatically equal 100 % economic loss.
Findings & Observations
The Court affirmed that permanent physical disability must be translated into economic loss based on the injured person’s vocation (citing Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) and Chandra Mogera v. Santhosh A Ganachari (2025)).
Both appellants were classified as skilled drivers; loss of the right leg and elbow power makes them completely unfit to drive, establishing 100 % functional disability for Wasim Akram and 15 % functional disability for Musaddiq Ahmed (as per High Court’s determination).
The Court rejected the High Court’s Rs 15,000 monthly income figure, accepting documentary evidence (Ex P‑6, P‑11) and fixing a notional monthly income of Rs 40,000 for both appellants.
A 40 % addition for future prospects was applied, as both appellants were below 40 years at the time of accident (citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017)).
Conventional heads of compensation (medical expenses, special diet, pain & suffering, future medical, loss of happiness & amenities) were retained as per the High Court’s awards.
Liability of Respondent 1 (owner) and Respondent 2 (insurer) remains joint and several.
Respondent 2 (insurer) is directed to pay the entire enhanced compensation amounts (Rs 1,26,49,850 and Rs 21,29,550) along with interest at 6 % per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.
Payment must be made within eight weeks of the order; the appellant’s bank account details are to be furnished promptly by the appellant’s counsel.
The insurer is permitted to recover the paid amounts from the bus owner or driver in accordance with applicable law.
Final Ruling & Enforcement
Both Special Leave Petitions (SLP C No. 2568/2026 and SLP C No. 3129/2026) are allowed in the terms stated above.
All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
The order is effective immediately, and compliance is mandatory under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
