Motor Accident Compensation for Amputees Must Include Realistic Cost of Prosthetic Limb Replacement and Maintenance
Case Name: Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways & Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 396
Date of Judgment/Order: 21 April 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Held: The Supreme Court held that in motor accident cases involving amputation, compensation under the head of prosthetic limb must be assessed on a realistic and restorative basis, so far as money can place the injured claimant near the position he would have occupied but for the accident. The Court held that a prosthetic limb is not a one-time expense, as it requires periodic replacement and annual maintenance, and therefore compensation must account for future replacement over the claimant’s assumed life span. The Court reiterated that the usual working basis is an assumed life span of 70 years and a prosthetic limb replacement cycle of five years, subject to evidence and reasonableness. It further held that Government-notified low rates cannot bind courts where the claimant reasonably requires a better prosthetic device, because the standard remains “just compensation” under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, not a pittance or mechanical reimbursement.
Summary: The appellant suffered a serious motor accident on 2 May 2007 when a Haryana Roadways bus hit the motorcycle on which he was travelling, resulting in crushing of his right leg and eventual below-knee amputation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded INR 8,73,211, which was enhanced by the Rajasthan High Court to INR 13,02,043, but no amount was awarded for prosthetic limb replacement and maintenance. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that as a heavy vehicle driver aged 32 at the time of accident, he would require multiple prosthetic limbs during his lifetime and that his functional disability should be treated as 100% since he could no longer drive heavy vehicles. The Court relied on principles of restitutio in integrum, earlier decisions including Mohd. Sabeer, Chandra Mogera, Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, and comparative jurisprudence recognising that prosthetic limbs are highly personal and essential aids for dignity and mobility. The Court rejected the insurer’s reliance on low Government rates, accepted INR 6,000 per month as reasonable income for a driver in 2007 despite absence of documentary proof, treated the functional disability as 100%, and awarded separate compensation for prosthetic limb replacement, maintenance and litigation cost.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation over and above the amount already awarded by the High Court. It awarded INR 21,00,000 for seven prosthetic limbs calculated at INR 3,00,000 per limb, INR 5,00,000 towards maintenance of prosthetic limbs, INR 8,02,368 as further enhancement under loss of future income, INR 18,000 as additional loss of income during treatment, and INR 2,00,000 towards litigation costs, making the additional payable amount INR 36,20,350 rounded off. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the enhanced amount within four weeks, failing which it would carry interest at 9% per annum. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.