Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Prahlad Sahai – Appellant
Versus
Haryana Roadways & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4642 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8756 of 2024)
Decided On : 21-04-2026
Key Points: - Prosthetic limb compensation should be just, reasonable, and based on future needs with expert assessment (!) (!) - Court mandates a consolidated provision for prosthetic limbs: seven limbs for a 32-year-old with assumed 70-year life span and five-year replacement cycle; maintenance cost included (!) (!) (!) (!) - Judge rejected government-notified price rates as too low and allowed alternative method with expert quotations and individualized calculations (!) (!) (!) - Life expectancy and assumed age at death (70 years) are used to compute duration of prosthetic limb needs (!) (!) - The award includes loss of future income, loss of income during treatment, and litigation costs; specific enhancements: loss of future income Rs. 8,02,368; treatment period Rs. 18,000; litigation costs Rs. 2,00,000; total prosthetic limb compensation Rs. 26,00,000; overall Rs. 36,20,350 (!) (!) (!) - The court emphasizes restitutio in integrum and reasonableness for aids and equipment, rejecting windfall effects (!) (!) - Requirement that prosthetic limb claims be accompanied by quotations from service providers to inform Tribunal assessments (Chandra Mogera line) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. importance of prosthetic limbs to amputees. (Para 1) |
| 2. jurisdiction and context of compensation appeals. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. appellant's objective of seeking higher compensation. (Para 6) |
| 4. appellant's contentions regarding compensation adequacy. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. respondents' counterarguments to the appellant's claims. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. court's reasoning for determining 'just compensation'. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. validation of prosthetic limb compensation based on life expectancy. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. assessment of monthly income and future prospects. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 9. final decision on compensation awarded. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT
K. V. Viswanathan, J.
1. For amputees, a prosthetic limb would get them closest to the life experienced, before the onset of their disability. The device, apart from empowering them, is integral to their life, giving them confidence and self-belief. The appliance is so personal to the individual that its indispensability can only be better appreciated by the person disabled. In a poignant passage, Lord Brooke in David Pinnington vs. Crossleigh , [2003] EWCA Civ 1684 observed:
2. The primary issue in this case concerns the jurisprudential basis for the computation and award of compensation under the head of “Prosthetic Limb”, in motor accident cases.
3. Leave granted. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1661/2017. By the said Order, the High Court, while partly allowing the appeal of the appellant, enhanced the compensation awarded from Rs. 8,73,211/- (as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) to Rs. 13,02,043/-.
BRIEF FACTS: -
4. As a result of an unfortunate accident on 02.05.2007, the appellant’s entire right leg was crushed. Ultimately, the appellant’s right leg from below the knee had to be amputated. The accident occurred when the appellant was travelling with his friend on a motorcycle from Transport Nagar to Ajmer Road in Jaipur, Rajasthan. The bus belonging to Haryana Roadways dashed into the motorcycle from behind.
5. A chart showing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the enhancement by the High Court under various heads is set out hereinbelow : -
| S.No | Title/item | Compensation awarded by the Tribunal | Compensation determined vide this judgment2 [This judgment: means the judgment of the High Court] |
| 1. | In the head of loss of future income | Rs. 5,61,600/- | Rs. 8,10,432/- |
| 2. | In the head of physical and mental sufferings | Rs. 50,000/- | Rs. 65,000/- |
| 3. | In the head of loss of future amenities | Nil | Rs. 65,000/- |
| 4. | In the head of amount spent during treatment | Rs. 1,61,111/- | Rs. 1,61,111/- |
| 5. | In the head of admission for 51 days in hospital during treatment. | Rs. 25,500/- | Rs. 25,500/- |
| 6. | In the head of loss of income during treatment period. | Rs. 54,000/- | Rs. 54,000/- |
| 7. | In the head of healthy diet | Rs. 10,000/- | Rs. 10,000/- |
| 8. | In the head of expenditure on transportation | Rs. 10,000/- | Rs. 10,000/- |
| 9. | In the head of loss of property | Rs. 1,000/- | Rs. 1,000/- |
| 10. | In the head of attendant/ assistant | Nil | Rs. 1,00,000/- |
| Total | Rs. 8,73,211/- | Rs. 13,02,043/- |
6. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant is in appeal before us see
The court established that compensation for prosthetic limbs must be just, reasonable, and based on future needs, emphasizing the need for expert assessments to ensure adequacy and fairness.
Compensation for permanent disability due to limb amputation must be 'just,' encompassing accurate notional income, future prospects, and full provision for recurring requirements including periodic ....
Fair compensation in personal injury cases must be comprehensive, accounting for future medical needs, disability impact on earnings, and changes in the claimant's occupational capabilities.
The principle of 'just compensation' in motor vehicle accident cases requires that the assessment of damages considers both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, reflecting the actual impact of injurie....
(1) In cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects.(2) Permanent disability suffered in motor accident....
The judgment emphasizes the necessity for just compensation reflecting both the severity of injuries and the lifelong impacts on the victim's earning potential and dignity.
The determination of compensation for prosthetic/artificial limb under the Motor Vehicles Act aims to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position prior to the accident.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
