Prosthetic limb compensation must provide for periodic replacement every five years until age seventy.

The Appellant, a 32-year-old driver, suffered an accident on May 2, 2007, when a Haryana Roadways bus struck his motorcycle from behind.

His right leg was crushed, eventually necessitating amputation below the knee.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) awarded Rs. 8,73,211, which the High Court enhanced to Rs. 13,02,043.

The Appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement, particularly for the cost and maintenance of prosthetic limbs (which were not awarded by the lower courts) and a revision of his monthly income and functional disability status.

1. What is the jurisprudential basis for the computation and award of compensation for "Prosthetic Limbs" in motor accident cases?

2. Whether the Appellant was entitled to higher compensation for loss of future income based on a revised monthly income and 100% functional disability?

3. Whether the court is bound by the low rates for prosthetics prescribed in Government Notifications?

The Court applied Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates the determination of "just compensation" that is fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary.

It relied on the principle of restitutio in integrum, aiming to restore the injured party to their original position as far as money can allow.

Precedents such as State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur established that compensation should not be a windfall but must not be a pittance.

Md. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, UPSRTC and Chandra Mogera v. Santosh A. Ganachari established a life expectancy of 70 years, a 5-year replacement cycle for prosthetic limbs, and the necessity of awarding maintenance costs.

Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance and Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance provided that for workers in the unorganized sector, income must be assessed reasonably even in the absence of documentary evidence.

The Court observed that for an amputee, a prosthetic limb is integral to life, confidence, and self-belief.

It rejected the Insurance Company’s reliance on low Government Notification rates, holding that claimants are entitled to reasonable private-sector options and periodic replacements, as restitutio in integrum applies.

Adopting a standardized formula, the Court assumed a life expectancy of 70 years and a 5-year life span per prosthetic.

Since the Appellant was 32 at the time of the accident, the Court calculated a need for seven limbs over the remaining 38 years of his life.

Regarding income, the Court found the Appellant’s claim of Rs. 6,000 per month as a driver in 2007 to be reasonable despite a lack of documentation.

The Court assessed his functional disability at 100%, noting that as a heavy vehicle driver, an amputated leg rendered him entirely incapable of pursuing his specific vocation.

It held that the Appellant is entitled to a consolidated sum of Rs. 21,00,000 for seven prosthetic limbs (at Rs. 3,00,000 each) and Rs. 5,00,000 for lifetime maintenance.

It further enhanced the compensation for "loss of future income" by Rs. 8,02,368 based on a monthly income of Rs. 6,000 and 100% functional disability.

Additionally, it awarded Rs. 18,000 for loss of income during treatment and Rs. 2,00,000 for litigation costs.

The Court directed Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company) to pay a total additional sum of Rs. 36,20,350 (over and above the High Court's award) within four weeks, failing which 9% interest per annum shall apply.