Future prosthetic replacement costs and maintenance are compensable based on the claimant’s life expectancy.

On 23 September 2023, Babu Lal was struck by a truck while crossing a road near Shiv Mandir, Pul Prahladpur.

He sustained grievous injuries, underwent bilateral leg amputations, and was assessed as having 89% permanent disability in relation to both lower limbs.

The MACT awarded him ₹52,10,228 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The insurer appealed, seeking a reduction, and Babu Lal cross-appealed, seeking enhancement.

Whether the evidence established contributory negligence on the claimant’s part because he crossed the road while the traffic light was red

Whether the awards for prosthetic limbs, their replacement and maintenance, and future medical expenses were justified

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the claimant’s income and attendant-care requirement

Whether the non-pecuniary damages required revision or consolidation under recognised heads of compensation

The Court applied the principles in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, concerning the assessment of permanent disability and standard heads of non-pecuniary damages.

Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, concerning assessment of attendant charges.

Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, UPSRTC, (2023) 20 SCC 774, concerning the period for which prosthetic limbs may be required by reference to life expectancy.

It also relied on Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 651, in considering prosthetic-limb maintenance expenses.

The Court further treated unchallenged or uncontradicted evidence as material to the assessment of negligence and compensation, while sustaining minimum wages for an unskilled worker where the claimant did not substantiate his asserted employment as a tailor.

The Court rejected the insurer’s negligence argument because the isolated cross-examination answer relied on by the insurer appeared to be a typographical error when read with the claimant’s affidavit and the rest of his testimony.

The site plan did not show the traffic-light locations, and the insurer produced no contrary evidence.

It upheld the initial prosthetic-limb estimate, finding no evidence that equivalent limbs were available for less, and allowed for two further replacements and maintenance, subject to reimbursement safeguards.

It reduced future medical expenses from ₹9,00,000 to ₹5,00,000, but sustained the unskilled-worker minimum wage because the claimant had not proved his employment as a tailor.

Given the bilateral amputations, it allowed attendant charges for one attendant and revised the non-pecuniary awards by consolidating overlapping sums under pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

The Court stated that compensation was enhanced by ₹10,88,504, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

₹3,00,000 of the enhanced amount was directed to be released immediately, with the balance placed in staggered FDRs.

It separately directed deposit of ₹21,50,000 for prosthetic limbs and maintenance, to be released only against a verified original invoice and proof of payment from an authorised and reputed vendor.

The judgment’s attendant-charge figures are internally inconsistent: paragraph 33 states ₹22,74,888, while the revised table lists ₹26,88,504; the table also records the enhanced total as ₹62,98,732.