Prahlad Sahai vs. Haryana Roadways

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 396
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4642 OF 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8756 of 2024)


Prahlad Sahai ……. Appellant(s)
Versus
Haryana Roadways & Anr. ……. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIRMALA NEGI
Date: 2026.04.21
17:25:39 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 25

1
passage, Lord Brooke in David Pinnington vs. Crossleigh
observed:
“49. …Those of us who have not had the misfortune of
losing an arm may have more difficulty in appreciating
the view of the joint experts when they said how
personal this kind of appliance is to a disabled …”
(Emphasis supplied)

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/-.


1
[2003] EWCA Civ 1684
Page 2 of 25

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 : -

2
This judgment: means the judgment of the High Court.

Page 3 of 25

6. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant
is in appeal before us seeking enhancement and
compensation under additional heads.
7. We have heard Mr. Anuj Bhandari, learned Counsel for
the appellant, Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, learned Counsel for
the Haryana Roadways Corporation-respondent No.1 and Mr.
Vishnu Mehra, learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance
Company-respondent No.2.

Page 4 of 25

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:-
8. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, learned Counsel submits that no
provision has been made for artificial/prosthetic limb and
compensation towards purchase and maintenance of the
same. Relying upon Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v.
Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
3
Corporation , learned Counsel contends that the appellant
was 32 years of age on the date of the accident and taking an
assumed life expectancy of 70 years, he would need
prosthetic limb(s) for 38 years. Learned Counsel contends
that an artificial limb needs to be replaced every 5 years and
maintenance charges will also have to be incurred. Learned
Counsel contends that there is a need for standardization of
the compensation for prosthetic limb(s) since even
according to the chart furnished by the Counsel for the
Haryana Roadways, compensation ranging from Rs.
3,10,000/- to Rs. 35,00,000/- has been awarded in different
cases by this Court. Learned Counsel draws attention to Md.

3
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701
Page 5 of 25

Shabir (supra) where the cost of a prosthetic limb for one
block of 5 years was taken at Rs. 2,60,000/- and maintenance
cost between Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/- were awarded.
9. Learned Counsel further relies on the order of the High
4
Court of Delhi in Ajay Kumar vs. Shyam Sunder , wherein
the High Court, vide its order dated 04.01.2018 issued notice
to various expert bodies and stakeholders to ascertain the
pricing of prosthetic limbs. Thereafter, by order dated
19.02.2018, the High Court in Ajay Kumar (supra) constituted
an expert committee to give report inter alia on fixing
artificial limb on motor accident victims and its costing. Ajay
Kumar (supra) was merged with the case of Rajesh Tyagi &
5
Ors. v. Jaibir Singh & Ors . , (Rajesh Tyagi - IV) and
thereafter an order was passed on 08.01.2021 (J.R. Midha, J.)
making the report of the committee an integral part of the
order. Learned counsel ultimately suggested that life span
be taken as seventy years following Md. Shabir (supra) ; In
the event of the claimant being above the age of seventy

4
MAC. APP. 1134/2017
5
FAO No. 842/2003
Page 6 of 25

years, one time compensation be granted and as regards
inflation even though National Insurance Company Limited
6
v. Pranay Sethi and Others fixed the enhancement rate at 10
per cent for every three years for certain heads, learned
counsel suggested that considering the current inflation it
ought to be fixed at 5 per cent per annum;
10. Learned Counsel suggested that in case lump sum
amount is given, for future years the claimant will be earning
interest and as such the price of the prosthetic limb be taken
as a constant and an award for every segment of five years
be made till the claimant reaches the age of seventy years;
Learned Counsel submits that taking the price of prosthetic
limb which was at Rs. 2,78,000/- in 2021, (which, according to
him, would have been Rs. 1,78,000/- in 2007), prayed for a
suitable award. Learned counsel further prays that the said
amount be granted to him at 9 per cent interest from the date
of accident till the date of payment.

6
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Page 7 of 25

11. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the
High Court has erred in not considering the monthly income
of the appellant as Rs. 6,000/-. Learned Counsel contends
that the appellant was a driver and his claim of Rs. 6,000/-
per month was not unreasonable and further submits that
documentary evidence could not be expected from persons
employed in that strata of income. Learned Counsel
contends that the difference between Rs. 4500 and Rs. 6000 is
not very high. Learned Counsel relies on Chandra and
7
Another v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others ,.
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
8
Insurance Company Limited and Syed Sadiq and others v.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company
9
Limited in support of the proposition.
12. According to the learned Counsel, the loss of future
income should have been taken as Rs. 16,12,800/- instead of
Rs. 8,10,432/-. Learned Counsel contends that the functional

7
(2022) 1 SCC 198
8
(2011) 13 SCC 236
9
(2014) 2 SCC 735
Page 8 of 25

disability of the appellant was hundred per cent. Learned
Counsel relies on the evidence of AW-2 Dr. Ratan Lal Dayma
to support the plea that the appellant would not be able to
drive heavy vehicles. Learned Counsel, relying upon Pranay
Sethi (Supra) and Smt. Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi
10
Transport Corporation & Another , contends that taking
future prospect at 40 per cent and applying 100 per cent
functional disability, the amount towards loss of future
prospects would be Rs. 16,12,800/-.
13. Further, the learned counsel also prays for
compensation for future medical treatment as well as for
litigation expenses.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
14. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, learned Counsel for Haryana
Roadways, produced a chart insofar as the claim under
compensation for prosthetic limb is concerned. Learned
Counsel submitted that there is indeed a variation in the
award of compensation between Rs. 3,10,000/- to Rs.

10
(2009) 6 SCC 121
Page 9 of 25

35,00,000/- and relied on a chart to drive home the point.
Learned Counsel submits that in Md. Shabir (supra) for a
thirty-seven year old patient, after taking life span as seventy
years, compensation for three prosthetic limbs was awarded.
Learned Counsel contends that award of compensation
should not result in any windfall and what should be awarded
is a “just and reasonable” compensation.
15. Learned Counsel further contends that in Chandra
11
Mogera v. Santosh A. Ganachari & Anr. , this Court held
that in every claim petition in which claim for compensation
under the head of prosthetic limb is filed, it shall be
accompanied with price quotations from at least two or three
service providers. Learned Counsel for Haryana Roadways,
suggested inflation rate of four per cent per annum for the
cost of prosthetic limb.
16. Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned Senior Counsel for the
insurance company drew attention to the notification of the
Government of India dated 09.07.2024 and invited particular

11
Civil Appeal 12183/2025 dated 11.9.2025
Page 10 of 25

attention to the suggested price range of Rs. 20,000/- to
25,000/-. Learned counsel for the insurance company
contends that no evidence was produced to show that the
salary of the appellant was Rs. 6,000/- . Learned Counsel
submitted that the claim under the heads of prosthetic limb,
further medical treatment, pains, suffering, loss of amenities
and litigation cost are on the higher side.
QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION :-
17. In the above background, the question that arises for
consideration is whether the appellant has made out a case
for further enhancement of compensation?
ANALYSIS AND REASONING:-
PROSTHETIC LIMB – RESTITUTING CLAIMANT TO THE
ORIGINAL POSITION – AS FAR AS POSSIBLE :-
18. For the compensation of prosthetic limb(s), no amount
has been awarded by the Tribunal or the High Court. It is
undisputed among all parties that the appellant is entitled to
be compensated towards the cost of purchase of prosthetic
Page 11 of 25

limb(s) and its maintenance. The only question is, what
should be the compensation which is payable.
19. Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
mandate is to determine a ‘just compensation’. Pasayat J.,
speaking for this Court in State of Haryana and Another v.
12
Jasbir Kaur and Others , held as under:-
“7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal
constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168
is required to make an award determining the
amount of compensation which is to be in the real
sense “damages” which in turn appears to it to be
“just and reasonable”. It has to be borne in mind that
compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be
weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has
to be borne in mind that the compensation is not
expected to be a windfall for the victim . Statutory
provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must
be “just” and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of
profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The courts
and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors
and quantify the amount of compensation, which should
be just. What would be “just” compensation is a
vexed question. There can be no golden rule
applicable to all cases for measuring the value of
human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be
arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It
would depend upon the particular facts and
circumstances, and attending peculiar or special
features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for
assessing compensation has to be considered in the
background of “just” compensation which is the
pivotal consideration. Though by use of the

12
(2003) 7 SCC 484
Page 12 of 25

expression “which appears to it to be just” a wide
discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the
determination has to be rational, to be done by a
judicious approach and not the outcome of whims,
wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression
“just” denotes equitability, fairness and
reasonableness, and non-arbitrary . If it is not so it
cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra
SRTC [(1999) 1 SCC 90].”
(Emphasis supplied)
20. As rightly held in Jasbir Kaur (supra) compensation for
loss of limbs can hardly be weighed in golden scales and
one cannot expect a mathematical exactitude in arriving at a
just and reasonable recompense.
21. This Court in Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Transport
13
Corpn., regarding assumed life span of a claimant held as
under:-
“6. This Court in Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam , 1987 ACJ
172 has observed that the span of life should be taken to
be 70 years in view of the high rise in life expectancy. It
is specially so in the case of Army officers who are
disciplined to live an active and energetic life. The
courts below were not justified in taking the normal
span of life to be 60 years and that of an Army officer 56
years .”
(Emphasis supplied)

13
(1992) 2 SCC 5676
Page 13 of 25

22. Further, this Court in Md. Shabir (supra) dealing with
compensation for purchase and maintenance of prosthetic
limb held as under: -
“23. As per the current compensation given for
the prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would
last the Appellant for only 15 years, even if we
were to assume that the limb would not need to be
replaced after a few years. The Appellant was
only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it
would be reasonable to assume that he would live
till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the
opinion that the Appellant must be compensated so
that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in
his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least
till he has reached 70 years of age. For the Prosthetic
limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded
compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of
the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs.
5,00,000/-.”
(Emphasis supplied)
23. What is crucial to note is, this Court fixed the assumed
life span of claimant as seventy years and also awarded
maintenance cost. This Court also held that average life of a
prosthetic limb would be a few years.
24. Our research led us to a web hosted PowerPoint
presentation titled “Prosthetic Claims – restitutio in
integrum ?” by Mr. Steve Love, KC. We have found the
Page 14 of 25

presentation, especially the case law referred to therein
which we have examined, very useful for the adjudication of
the present case.

ARE COURTS BOUND BY THE GOVERNMENTAL RATES
UNDER THE NOTIFICATION? :-
25. In David Pinnington (supra) , recognizing the
entitlement of the disabled individual to opt for a prosthetic
limb from a Private Centre and recognizing the legitimacy of
computing that amount as a reasonable compensation, it was
held: -
“49. Again it seems to me to be very much a matter for
the judge to assess. There was not the evidence, as there
just might have been in Woodrup, to entitle the judge to
indulge in the kind of speculation that Mr Cotter urged
on us. This was a case in which, bearing in mind what
he is entitled to do under the 1948 Act, the judge was
entitled to find that it was reasonable for Mr
Pinnington to acquire this range of devices and
renew them once every five years. He would be
acting reasonably in acquiring them from a private
centre which would provide him properly for his
needs in what is very much a very personal affair…. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
Page 15 of 25

26. In similar vein, Lloyd Jones J. A (suing by her litigation
14
friend Mrs H) v. Powys Local Health Board, held that if the
treatment claimed by the claimant is reasonable, it is no
answer for the defendant to point to cheaper options. This
principle was extended to assessment of damages in respect
of aids and equipment, as is clear from the following extracts
from Powys (supra) .
“94. The basis of assessment is the test of
reasonableness as stated in Rialis v Mitchell, (Court of
Appeal, 6 July 1984) and Sowden v Lodge [2004] EWCA
Civ 1370, [2005] 1 All ER 581, [2005] 1 WLR 2129. The
Claimant is entitled to damages to meet her
reasonable requirements and reasonable needs
arising from her injuries. In deciding what is
reasonable it is necessary to consider first whether
the provision chosen and claimed is reasonable and
not whether, objectively, it is reasonable or whether
other provision would be reasonable. Accordingly, if
the treatment claimed by the Claimant is reasonable
it is no answer for the Defendant to point to cheaper
treatment which is also reasonable. Rialis and Sowden
were concerned with the appropriate care regime.
However, the principles stated in those cases apply
equally to the assessment of damages in respect of
aids and equipment. In determining what is required
to meet the Claimant's reasonable needs it is
necessary to make findings as to the nature and
extent of the Claimant's needs and then to consider

14
[2007] EWHC 2996 (QB)
Page 16 of 25

whether what is proposed by the Claimant is
reasonable having regard to those needs . (Massey v
Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust [2007]
EWHC 317 (QB), Teare J at para 59; Taylor v Chesworth
and MI В [2007] EWHC 1001 (QB) Ramsay J at para 84.”

(Emphasis supplied)
27. Hence, 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.
rd
28. P. Ramanatha Aiyar in his “Advanced Law Lexicon” (3
Edition 2005) defines restitutio in integrum as follows:-
“ To restore parties to their original position.
restitution to the original condition”.
Extending the principle of restitutio in integrum to cases of
provision for prosthetic limbs after holding that claimants are
entitled to their own choice of procuring a prosthetic limb
without relying on the National Health Service, and
recognizing the right of periodic replacement, it was held in
15
Kerry Donnelly v. Fas Products Ltd , as under: -
“41. ….She is not obliged to use the National Health
Service in order to acquire a prosthesis: Law Reform

15
2004 S.C.L.R. 678 UK
Page 17 of 25

(Personal Injuries) Act 1948, section 2(4). While I cannot
be certain that the pursuer will in fact choose to replace
her prosthesis every year, I consider that she is entitled
to be put into such a position that she is able to do so. A
prosthesis is a poor substitute for lost fingers but it is
the only substitute that is available. The principle of
restitutio in integrum applies . If it is necessary for the
pursuer to succeed in recovering the whole life cost
of replacement that I find that she probably will
replace the prosthesis each year by private purchase
(assuming that she is placed in such a financial position
as to allow her to do so), then I make that finding…..”
(Emphasis supplied)
The only caveat is that the claim should be reasonable. What
is also significant to note is the entitlement of the claimant to
replacement cost has been recognized.
29. Nearer home, in the case of Chandra Mogera (supra) ,
Sanjay Karol J. speaking for this Court said: -
“10. The appellant, on account of the amputation above
knee would require a prosthetic limb. It is a fact that a
prosthetic limb, which is an aid for mobility, is not
permanent in nature. It generally has a limited span of
usability and usually requires replacement once
every 5 years in order to function effectively. The
appellant was aged 29 years at the time of filing of
the present appeal, and it would be reasonable to
assume that he would live at least till the age of 70
years, as a conservative estimate, if not more.
Therefore, he would require prosthetic replacement
at an interval of every 5 years until he attains the age
of 70 years...…… ”

11. We find that in recent cases the claim for
compensation against the head of prosthetic limb has
Page 18 of 25

often come up for consideration before this Court.
Almost in every case, no estimate for cost is provided,
either as the basic cost of procurement or for periodic
maintenance thereof. It is, as such we direct that
henceforth whenever a claim for grant of
compensation under the head of Prosthetic
Limb/Artificial Limb is filed, then the same shall be
accompanied with requisite quotations from at least
two or three service providers, enabling the Tribunal
to make an informed assessment of the actual cost
which may be incurred in the future.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

This Court in Chandra Mogera (supra), held that the life
span as five years for an artificial limb and the age up to
which compensation for artificial limb is to be computed as
seventy years. Most importantly, this Court also laid down
that henceforth 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. We concur with the said view
and reiterate the said holding.
30.
As would be clear from the discussion hereinabove, our
Court has recognized a block of five years as the reasonable
Page 19 of 25

replacement period for a prosthetic limb, and we have
followed the same.
31. The appellant was thirty-two years in 2007. Applying an
assumed life span of seventy years as the maximum for which
as a standard formula compensation for prosthetic limb is
awarded and calculating the life of one prosthetic limb as
five years, the appellant will need seven prosthetic limbs.
Insofar as the price is concerned, the appellant has claimed
the 2007 price for the first block with interest @ 9 per cent.
Though he has claimed for eight limbs the correct proportion
to award would be seven limbs, since the amputation
happened on 17.07.2009.
32. We are inclined to award, like in Md. Shabir (supra), a
consolidated amount towards the price. We are inclined to
grant Rs. 3,00,000/- per limb on a standard basis for seven
limbs. In view of the fact that a consolidated amount is being
paid, no interest from the date of the accident is awarded.
Considering that the price has been arrived at by broadly
applying the case Md. Shabir (supra), which we find
Page 20 of 25

reasonable, we are not inclined to proceed on the basis of
the notification relied upon by the Insurance Company.
33. We are also inclined to award cost of maintenance of
prosthetic limb at Rs.15,000/- annually. For a block of five
years, it would work out to approximately Rs. 75,000/-. We
award a consolidated sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- till the assumed
life span of seventy years.
MONTHLY INCOME AND FUTURE PROSPECTS: -
16
34. This Court in Jai Bhagwan v. Laxman Singh ,
regarding the assessment of damages in personal-injury-
actions, observed as under:-
“9. In the matter of assessment of damages in personal-
injury-actions, the approach of the Court, as indicated by
the House of Lords in H. West & Son,
Ltd. v. Shephard [(1963) 2 All ER 625] is guided by these
considerations:
“ My Lords, the damages which are to be awarded
for a tort are those which ‘so far as money can
compensate, will give the injured party reparation
for the wrongful act and for all the natural and
direct consequences of the wrongful act’
[ Admiralty Comrs. v. Susquehanna (Owners), The
Susquehanna [(1926) All ER 124 : 1926 AC 655] ].
The words ‘so far as money can compensate’ point
to the impossibility of equating money with
human suffering or personal deprivations . A

16
(1994) 5 SCC 5
Page 21 of 25

money award can be calculated so as to make good a
financial loss. Money may be awarded so that
something tangible may be procured to replace
something else of like nature which has been
destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a
physical frame that has been battered and
shattered. All that judges and courts can do is to
award sums which must be regarded as giving
reasonable compensation. In the process there
must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity
in the general method of approach. By common
assent awards must be reasonable and must be
assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is
eminently desirable that so far as possible
comparable injuries should be compensated by
comparable awards. When all this is said it still must
be that amounts which are awarded are to a
considerable extent conventional.”

10. In Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (16th Edn.), referring to
damages for personal injuries, it is stated:
“In all but a few exceptional cases the victim of
personal injury suffers two distinct kinds of damage
which may be classed respectively as pecuniary and
non-pecuniary. By pecuniary damage is meant that
which is susceptible of direct translation into
money terms and includes such matters as loss of
earnings, actual and prospective, and out-of-pocket
expenses, while non-pecuniary damage includes
such immeasurable elements as pain and suffering
and loss of amenity or enjoyment of life. In respect
of the former, it is submitted, the court should and
usually does seek to achieve restitutio in integrum
in the sense described above, while for the latter it
seeks to award ‘fair compensation’ . This distinction
between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage by no
means corresponds to the traditional pleading
distinction between ‘special’ and ‘general’ damages,
for while the former is necessarily concerned solely
with pecuniary losses — notably accrued loss of
earnings and out-of-pocket expenses — the latter
comprises not only non-pecuniary losses but also
Page 22 of 25

prospective loss of earnings and other future
pecuniary damage.”
As to awards for non-pecuniary losses, the learned authors
say:
“ Non-pecuniary losses are different from
pecuniary losses in that the restitutio in integrum
objective cannot be applied literally to them —
damages cannot restore a lost limb or happiness.
While there is some disagreement as to the
function of non-pecuniary damages, many would
agree with the Royal Commission's suggestions
that they serve as a palliative, or provide the
plaintiff with the means to purchase alternative
forms of happiness, or help to meet hidden
expenses caused by injury . While the practice of the
courts is not to subdivide non-pecuniary damages
under specific heads, nevertheless proper
consideration cannot be given to the plaintiff's claim
without taking into account the various types of loss he
has suffered.”
(Emphasis supplied)

35. The appellant claimed a monthly income of Rs. 6,000/-,
as a heavy vehicle driver. The Tribunal and the High Court
proceeded on basis of monthly income being Rs 4,500/-. We
are inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel
for the appellant that the income should be taken as Rs.
6,000/- and the future prospects ought to be calculated on
that basis. We are persuaded to hold by relying on the
judgments of Ramachandrappa (supra) and Syed Sadiq
(supra) that merely because the appellant has not produced
Page 23 of 25

the documentary evidence, we are not prepared to reject the
same. Considering the occupation as driver and the year of
the accident, Rs. 6,000/- per month appears to be a
reasonable amount to compute. Further AW-2 Dr. Ratan Lal
Dayma has clearly deposed that the appellant will not be
able to drive heavy vehicles. Today, his right leg is
amputated. Hence, we compute the functional disability to
100 per cent and applying the formula of Rs.6000 X 40%X 12
X 16 (multiplier) and taking disability at 100 per cent, we
arrive at the figure of Rs. 16,12,800/-. The High Court has
awarded Rs. 8,10,432/-. Hence, on this head, the
compensation will stand further enhanced by Rs. 8,02,368/-
and accordingly, the loss of income during the treatment
period will stand enhanced by Rs. 18,000/-.
36. Insofar as the claim towards litigation cost, a
consolidated sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded.
CONCLUSION :-
37. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal by
enhancing the compensation under the head ‘loss of future
Page 24 of 25

income’ to Rs. 8,02,368/-; under ‘loss of income during
treatment period’ to Rs. 18,000/-; litigation cost at Rs.
2,00,000/- and the compensation payable towards prosthetic
limb including maintenance cost at Rs. 26,00,000/- (21,00,000
+ 5,00,000). Accordingly, we direct the insurance company-
Respondent No. 2, to pay a sum of Rs. 36,20,350/-(rounded
off). We make it clear that this amount of Rs. 36,20,350/- is
over and above the amount as ordered by the High Court.
38. The above amount as directed shall be paid within four
weeks from today, failing which interest shall be payable at
9% per annum.
39. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.


……….........................J.
[ J.B. PARDIWALA ]



……….........................J.
[ K. V. VISWANATHAN ]
New Delhi;
st
21 April, 2026
Page 25 of 25