Government Notification Rates For Prosthetic Limbs Abysmally Low: Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation
The Court held that compensation for prosthetic limbs must be based on the principle of restitutio in integrum and reasonable needs of the claimant, rejecting artificially low benchmark rates.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that the rates prescribed in a Government Notification for prosthetic limbs cannot be relied upon where they are abysmally low and inconsistent with the requirement of awarding just compensation, and accordingly, enhanced compensation under the head of prosthetic limb in a motor accident case.
The Court was hearing an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to an accident victim who had suffered amputation of his right leg, particularly under the head of prosthetic limb and its maintenance.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, while stating that “Senior Counsel for the insurance company drew attention to the notification of the Government of India dated 09.07.2024 and invited particular attention to the suggested price range”, observed: “we have no hesitation in rejecting the rates prescribed in the Government Notification relied upon by the Insurance Company, which, in any event, are abysmally low.”
Advocate Anuj Bhandari appeared for the appellant; Advocate Akshay Amritanshu appeared for the respondents.
Background
The appellant suffered a motor accident resulting in the amputation of his right leg below the knee. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads, which was subsequently enhanced by the High Court.
However, no compensation was awarded towards prosthetic limb and its maintenance, leading the appellant to approach the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement.
The appellant contended that a prosthetic limb requires periodic replacement and maintenance and that compensation must account for lifetime requirements. The respondents, on the other hand, relied upon a Government Notification prescribing lower rates for prosthetic limbs and contended that compensation should be limited accordingly.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the principles governing award of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and reiterated that the standard is one of “just compensation”, which must be fair, reasonable and not arbitrary.
Referring to settled law, the Court observed that compensation for loss of limb cannot be computed with mathematical precision and must be assessed based on the facts and circumstances of each case, keeping in view the principle of fairness.
The Court then analysed the concept of restitutio in integrum and held that compensation must aim to restore the injured claimant, as far as possible, to the position before the accident.
In this context, the Court recognised that a prosthetic limb is not a one-time expense but a recurring necessity, requiring periodic replacement and maintenance over the lifetime of the claimant. It noted that judicial precedents have consistently taken a replacement cycle of approximately five years and an assumed lifespan of seventy years for computation purposes.
The Court also relied upon earlier decisions to reiterate that the claimant is entitled to reasonable compensation for the procurement of prosthetic limbs and their upkeep, including future replacements.
Importantly, the Court addressed the reliance placed by the Insurance Company on a Government Notification prescribing rates for prosthetic limbs and held that such rates cannot bind the Court where they fail to meet the requirement of just compensation.
The Court further observed that the test for awarding compensation is one of reasonableness and adequacy, rather than mere adherence to the minimum prescribed rates. It emphasised that if the claimant’s requirements are reasonable, it is no answer to suggest cheaper alternatives.
“Whenever a claim for grant of compensation under the head of prosthetic limb/artificial limb is filed, the same shall be accompanied with requisite quotations from at least two or three service providers enabling the Tribunal to make an informed assessment”, the Court further remarked.
On the facts, the Court applied the principle of a five-year replacement cycle and assumed a life span of seventy years, and computed the number of prosthetic limbs required over the claimant’s lifetime. It further determined a reasonable cost per prosthetic limb and awarded a consolidated amount towards procurement.
In addition, the Court awarded a separate consolidated sum towards maintenance, recognising that upkeep costs are an essential component of compensation.
The Court also addressed other heads of compensation, including loss of future income and held that the claimant’s income and functional disability were required to be assessed realistically, resulting in further enhancement under those heads as well.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that compensation for prosthetic limbs must be determined on the basis of just and reasonable requirements of the claimant and cannot be restricted by abysmally low rates prescribed in Government Notifications.
The Court enhanced the compensation by awarding amounts towards prosthetic limb procurement and maintenance, along with enhancements under other heads, and directed the insurance company to pay the enhanced compensation within the stipulated time.
Cause Title: Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 396)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate Anuj Bhandari; Advocates Jahanvi Bhardwaj, Ishu Bhardwaj, Disha Bhandari
Respondents: Advocate Akshay Amritanshu; Advocates Sarthak Srivastava, Mayur Goyal
Insurance Company: Senior Advocate Vishnu Mehra; Advocate Gautam Jha; Advocates Siddhartha Jha, Pankaj Kumar, Vimal Prakash Pandey, Kartik Jha