Case at a Glance
A heavy-vehicle driver lost his right leg below the knee after a Haryana Roadways bus hit his motorcycle from behind in Jaipur on 2 May 2007. Neither the Tribunal nor the Rajasthan High Court awarded anything for a prosthetic limb. The Supreme Court held that he will need seven prosthetic limbs over an assumed lifespan of 70 years, awarded ₹3 lakh per limb plus ₹5 lakh for maintenance (₹26 lakh in all), treated his functional disability as 100% and raised his notional income to ₹6,000 a month. The insurer was directed to pay about ₹36.2 lakh over and above the High Court award within four weeks.
The appellant, a driver of heavy vehicles aged 32, was riding his motorcycle when a Haryana Roadways bus struck it from behind on 2 May 2007. His right leg was crushed and later amputated below the knee. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹8,73,211, and the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, by judgment dated 21 August 2023, enhanced it to ₹13,02,043. Both forums took his income as ₹4,500 a month and neither awarded any amount for a prosthetic limb.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant claimed the cost of artificial limbs for the rest of his life, a higher income and full functional disability. The insurer relied on a Government notification dated 9 July 2024 to argue that a prosthetic limb costs only around ₹20,000–25,000.
The Key Question Before the Court
How should a motor accident claims court compensate an amputee for the lifelong cost of prosthetic limbs, and can it fall back on low rates fixed in a Government notification?
Restitution Means the Limb He Actually Needs
Justice Viswanathan, writing for the Bench, held that the appellant was clearly entitled to compensation for prosthetic limbs and their maintenance; the only question was the amount. Following Chandra Mogera v. Santosh A. Ganachari and Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, UPSRTC, (2022) 12 SC CK 0026, the Court took five years as the reasonable life of a prosthesis and 70 years as the assumed lifespan, so a man injured at 32 “will need seven prosthetic limbs”. Drawing on English decisions on restitution, it noted that it is no answer for a defendant to point to cheaper treatment if the treatment claimed is reasonable. The Court had “no hesitation in rejecting the rates prescribed in the Government Notification”, describing them as abysmally low.
On loss of earning capacity, the Court accepted ₹6,000 a month as reasonable for a driver even without documentary proof, relying on Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 08 SC CK 0115 and Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 01 SC CK 0078. Since a doctor deposed that he could no longer drive heavy vehicles, functional disability was taken at 100%. With 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 16, loss of future income became ₹16,12,800, an enhancement of ₹8,02,368. Loss of income during treatment rose by ₹18,000, and ₹2 lakh was granted as consolidated litigation costs. As the prosthetic award is a consolidated sum, no interest from the date of accident was allowed on it.
What the Court Actually Held
- An amputee claimant is entitled to compensation for prosthetic limbs and their periodic replacement and maintenance for life.
- Taking a five-year replacement cycle and a 70-year lifespan, seven limbs at ₹3 lakh each plus ₹5 lakh for maintenance (₹26 lakh) were awarded.
- The low rates in the Government notification of 9 July 2024 were rejected; the claimant is entitled to a reasonable prosthesis, not the cheapest one.
- A driver who can no longer drive heavy vehicles has 100% functional disability; income was raised to ₹6,000 a month and the insurer must pay about ₹36.2 lakh extra within four weeks, failing which 9% interest applies.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It gives Tribunals a clear method for valuing lifelong prosthetic needs: replacement cycle, assumed lifespan, unit cost and maintenance.
- It stops insurers from relying on Government schedule rates to cut down the cost of a usable artificial limb.
- It reaffirms that functional disability, not just medical percentage, decides loss of earning capacity.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- If you have lost a limb, claim the cost of a good-quality prosthesis, its replacement every few years and its maintenance for life.
- Lead evidence that your injury stops you from doing your own job; that is what decides functional disability.
For Counsel
- Cite Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways, (2026) 04 SC CK 0516 with Chandra Mogera v. Santosh A. Ganachari for the five-year cycle and 70-year lifespan.
- Ask for litigation costs in long-pending accident appeals; the Court granted ₹2 lakh here.
Key Takeaways
- Prosthetic limb cost is a distinct head of compensation in MACT claims.
- Seven limbs were allowed for a 32-year-old: one every five years till age 70.
- Government notification rates do not cap prosthetic compensation.
- Loss of ability to do one’s own work can mean 100% functional disability.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many prosthetic limbs can an accident victim claim?
The Court took five years as the life of a prosthesis and 70 years as the assumed lifespan, so the number depends on the victim’s age. For a 32-year-old, it allowed seven limbs.
Can the insurer rely on Government rates for artificial limbs?
Not to cut the award to an unrealistic level. The Court rejected the notification rates as far too low and awarded ₹3 lakh per limb.
Is interest payable on the prosthetic limb amount from the accident date?
No. The Court said that since the prosthetic award is a consolidated sum, no interest from the date of accident would be added on it.
Conclusion
The judgment treats a prosthetic limb as what it is for an amputee — the means to walk and work for decades — and prices it accordingly rather than by a token schedule.
Practical takeaway: In every amputation claim, plead and prove the cost, replacement cycle and maintenance of a suitable prosthesis, and seek functional disability based on the claimant’s actual occupation.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com