Supreme Court: The present appeal challenged the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment dated 21 August 2023, whereby compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) was enhanced but the appellant found the same to be inadequate with regards to prosthetic limb and compensation towards its purchase and maintenance. Recognising the claimants right to procure their own choice of prosthetic limb without relying on the National Health Service, and the right of its periodic replacement, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ., directed the insurance company to pay a total enhanced compensation of Rs 36,20,350, over and above the amount already awarded by the High Court.
Factual Matrix
The appellant met with a motor accident on 2 May 2007 while travelling on a motorcycle in Jaipur. A bus belonging to Haryana Roadways struck the motorcycle from behind, resulting in catastrophic injuries. The appellant’s right leg was crushed, necessitating amputation below the knee.
The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs 8,73,211 under various heads including loss of future income, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and incidental expenses. The High Court, while partly allowing the appeal, enhanced the compensation to Rs 13,02,043. The enhancement included increase in loss of future income, grant under loss of amenities, and provision for an attendant, among others. However, significantly, no amount was awarded towards prosthetic limb or its maintenance.
Aggrieved by this omission and the alleged inadequacy of compensation under other heads, the appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement.
Issue for Determination
Whether the appellant had made out a case for further enhancement of compensation, particularly under the head of prosthetic limb and for its purchase and maintenance?
Analysis
At the outset, the Court observed that a prosthetic limb is not merely an assistive device but something that “gets them closest to the life experienced, before the onset of their disability”, instilling confidence and self-belief. Its indispensability can truly be appreciated only by the disabled person himself.
The Court noted that for the compensation of prosthetic limb, no amount had been awarded by the Tribunal or the High Court. It was asserted that appellant’s entitlement for compensation towards the cost of purchase of prosthetic limb and its maintenance, was undisputed.
The Court stated that under Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 compensation must be “just”, reflecting equitability, fairness and reasonableness. Referring to State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, (2003) 7 SCC 484, the Court reiterated that compensation for loss of limb “can hardly be weighed in golden scales” and cannot be a source of profit yet must not be a pittance. The determination must be rational and based on a judicious approach rather than arbitrariness.
Invoking the principle of restitutio in integrum — to restore the injured person, as far as possible, to his original condition, the Court in Kerry Donnelly v. Fas Products Ltd., 2004 S.C.L.R. 678 UK, held that claimants were entitled to their own choice of procuring a prosthetic limb without relying on the National Health Service. It further recognised the right of prosthetic limb periodic replacement.
Referring to Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P. SRTC, (2023) 20 SCC 774, the Court affirmed that average lifespan of a prosthetic limb is about 5 years, life expectancy for compensation purposes can reasonably be taken as 70 years and replacement cost is a legitimate component of compensation.
Relying on David Pinnington v. Crossleigh Construction, [2003] EWCA Civ 1684, and A v. Powys Local Health Board, [2007] EWHC 2996 (QB), the Court rejected rates prescribed in the Government Notification as relied by the insurance company, observing the same to be “abysmally low”.
Following this approach, the Court calculated that the appellant, aged 32 at the time of the accident, would require 7 prosthetic limbs (1 every 5 years) over his lifetime. The Court accepted the principle that replacement is necessary and not speculative, and that maintenance costs must also be factored in.
The Court awarded a consolidated sum of Rs 3,00,000 per limb, totalling Rs 21,00,000. In addition, maintenance costs were quantified at Rs 15,000 annually, leading to a lump sum award of Rs 5,00,000. Thus, total compensation under this head was fixed at Rs 26,00,000. It declined to award interest on this component since it was granted as a consolidated amount.
On the issue of income, the Court accepted the appellant’s claim of Rs 6000 per month, observing that documentary evidence cannot always be expected from persons in such strata. Considering his occupation as a driver and the year of accident, the figure was found reasonable.
Given the amputation and medical evidence indicating inability to drive, the Court held that functional disability was 100 per cent. Applying future prospects at 40 per cent and multiplier of 16, the Court computed loss of future income at Rs 16,12,800. Since the High Court had awarded Rs 8,10,432, the additional enhancement under this head was Rs 8,02,368. The Court also enhanced compensation for loss of income during treatment by Rs 18,000 and also awarded litigation costs of Rs 2,00,000.
Decision
The Court allowed the appeal and directed the insurance company to pay a total enhanced compensation of Rs 36,20,350, over and above the amount already awarded by the High Court, within 4 weeks, failing which it would carry interest at 9 per cent annum.
[Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 651, decided on 21-4-2026]
*Judgment by Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Adv., Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv., Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Haryana Roadways Corporation
Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Sr. Adv., Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company