SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 428

J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Prahlad Sahai – Appellant
Versus
Haryana Roadways – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Ms. Jahanvi Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Ishu Bhardwaj, Adv. Mrs. Disha Bhandari, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gautam Jha, AOR Mr. Siddhartha Jha, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vimal Prakash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Kartik Jha, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

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) (!) (!)

What is the just and reasonable compensation for prosthetic limb and its maintenance in motor accident cases?

What factors does the Court consider in determining compensation for prosthetic limbs, including life expectancy and replacement period?

What is the proper approach to assessing loss of future income and related damages in prosthetic limb claims?


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 , [200

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top