New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 21, ruled that motor accident victims are entitled to high-quality prosthetic limb that is integral to their lives, saying that for amputees, such artificial limbs get them “closest to the life experienced” before the onset of disability.
A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan said a prosthetic limb is not merely a medical device but an indispensable part of an amputee’s self-belief and empowerment.
Referring to a legal maxim ‘restitutio in integrum’ (restoration to original condition), the top court said, “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.”
Justice Viswanathan, writing the judgement, quoted British judge Lord Brooke who had said, “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…”.
The verdict came on an appeal filed by Prahlad Sahai, a driver who lost his right leg below the knee after his motorcycle was hit by a Haryana Roadways bus in 2007.
While the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) originally awarded him Rs 8.73 lakh and the Rajasthan High Court later enhanced it to Rs 13.02 lakh, the top court found these amounts insufficient.
The apex court has now ordered the insurance company to pay an additional Rs 36.20 lakh, effectively taking his total compensation to nearly Rs 50 lakh.
The verdict rejected the submission of the insurance firm that victims should only be compensated based on government notifications.
“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,” the bench said.
“If the treatment claimed is reasonable, there is no answer for the defendant to point to cheaper options,” the bench noted, adding that victims are entitled to choose private centres that provide devices suited to their personal needs.
It said a prosthetic limb is assumed to have a life span of only five years and for compensation purposes, a victim’s life expectancy should be assumed to be 70 years.
The bench awarded Rs 3 lakh per limb for seven replacement cycles (covering 38 years), totalling Rs 21 lakh, plus an additional Rs 5 lakh for maintenance.
The bench took a compassionate view of Sahai’s occupation as a driver.
Even though Sahai could not produce documentary evidence of his Rs 6,000 monthly salary, the bench accepted his claim, noting that such evidence cannot be expected from those employed in that “strata of income”.
The bench further computed his functional disability at 100 per cent, saying that an amputee cannot drive heavy vehicles.
The bench directed the insurance company to pay Rs 26 lakh for prosthetic limbs and maintenance.
It awarded Rs 8,02,368 enhancement for loss of future income besides Rs 2 lakh as litigation costs. It also awarded a sum of Rs 18,000 for loss of income during treatment.
The total additional sum of Rs 36,20,350 has to be paid within four weeks and failure to do so will attract an interest rate of 9 per cent per annum.
Follow on Twitter | Posted by Saleha Fatima | 
