Delhi High Court awards ₹25.17 lakh for four prosthetic limbs and recognises family-provided attendant care for amputee accident victim

On 22 March 2024, Madan Pal sustained injuries in a motor accident resulting in an above-knee amputation and 85% permanent physical disability of the left lower limb.

He was approximately 47 years old and employed as a Class-IV government-school employee in Gandhi Vidyalaya Inter College, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South District, Saket, awarded compensation of ₹75,83,400 with interest at 9% per annum by award dated 27 February 2026.

The Insurance Company challenged the award on the grounds that the claimant continued to receive his salary and service benefits, attendant charges lacked evidentiary basis, and the interest rate was excessive.

The claimant filed a cross-appeal seeking enhancement on account of functional disability, future prospects, multiplier, attendant charges, non-pecuniary damages, conveyance expenses, and prosthetic-limb costs.

Whether compensation for loss of future income could be awarded when the injured claimant continued in permanent government service, received his salary, and obtained increments and dearness allowance.

Whether future prospects should be assessed at 30%, rather than 15%, for a claimant aged approximately 47 years.

Whether compensation for attendant services could be awarded without proof that a paid attendant had been engaged, and whether the amount awarded was appropriate.

Whether the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal should be reduced.

Whether the compensation for prosthetic limbs and conveyance expenses required enhancement.

The Court applied the principles governing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including Section 171, under which simple interest may be awarded from the date of institution of the claim petition.

Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9, which treats prevailing fixed-deposit rates as a relevant guide for determining interest.

The principles concerning future prospects and multiplier computation under Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 5 SCC 121, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

The Court also relied on Govind Singh Mauni v. Tej Bhan, 2026:DHC:1020, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajmal Kaushik, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1285, regarding post-retirement loss of income and future prospects.

Under Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, attendant charges may be assessed with reference to applicable minimum wages.

Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain, 2024 INSC 777, recognises the compensable value of gratuitous attendant services rendered by family members.

For prosthetic limbs, the Court considered Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, UPSRTC, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701, and Prahalad Sahay v. Haryana Roadways, 2026:INSC:396, concerning replacement cycles and maintenance costs.

The Court rejected the Insurance Company’s contention that continued receipt of salary completely barred compensation for future loss of income.

Since the Tribunal had confined the computation to the claimant’s post-retirement loss of earnings, the Court upheld the use of a multiplier of 9 and enhanced future prospects from 15% to 30%, consistent with the claimant’s age of approximately 47 years and the principles in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi.

The Court further held that proof of hiring a paid attendant was unnecessary where the claimant’s 85% permanent disability and above-knee amputation demonstrated a continuing need for assistance.

Family-provided or gratuitous attendant services were equally compensable; consequently, the attendant award of ₹5,40,000 was sustained.

Applying Section 171 and Kaushnuma Begum, the Court reduced the interest rate from 9% to 6% per annum, having regard to relevant fixed-deposit rates.

For prosthetic limbs, the Court accepted the specific estimate of ₹5,54,400 per limb rather than the standardised amount referred to in Prahalad Sahay, and allowed for four limbs over the claimant’s projected lifetime, subject to production and verification of authentic invoices.

Given the claimant’s disability-related medical, mobility, and follow-up requirements, conveyance expenses were enhanced to ₹75,000.

The Court enhanced future prospects to 30%, increased conveyance expenses to ₹75,000, maintained attendant charges at ₹5,40,000, and reduced the interest rate to 6% per annum.

The tabulated compensation, excluding prosthetic-limb costs, was calculated at approximately ₹63,25,500, while the operative direction required deposit of the revised compensation stated as ₹63,20,500 with the Tribunal within six weeks.

A separate amount of ₹25,17,600 was directed to be deposited towards four prosthetic limbs, to be kept in an interest-bearing FDR and released only upon production and verification of an original invoice and proof of payment from an authorised and reputed vendor.

The amount was to be released in accordance with the scheme framed in the Tribunal’s award, and the statutory deposit was to be refunded to the Insurance Company subject to compliance with the deposit directions.