Periodic Replacement, Maintenance Cost Of Prosthetic Limb Must Be Factored Into Motor Accident Compensation: Kerala High Court

Justice M.B. Snehalatha granted Rs. 30 lakhs for periodic replacement and maintenance after noting that artificial leg is not a one-time expense:

“A prosthetic limb is not a one-time expense. It requires periodic replacement, maintenance, physiotherapy and adaptation over the claimant's lifetime. Therefore, the Courts/Tribunals must adopt a humane and realistic approach while assessing compensation. Merely awarding the present cost of an artificial limb would be wholly inadequate. A young person will require several replacements in the course of his life, particularly because prosthetic technology advances and wear and tear make periodic renewal inevitable. Compensation must accordingly include future medical expenses, recurring replacement costs, rehabilitation expenses and loss of amenities of life.”

The appellant before the Court was injured when a negligently-driven car hit the motorcycle he was travelling in. The Tribunal had awarded him around Rs 19.55 lakhs but he appealed before the High Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

He claimed that he suffered grievous injuries and his right leg had to be amputated above the knee. He contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal was neither just nor fair since only a sum of Rs. 3,47,900 was awarded for the prosthetic leg and no amount was awarded for its periodic replacement and maintenance.

The appellant added that when the accident happened, he was employed aboard as manager of a coffee shop with a salary of Rs. 25,000 per month but the Tribunal took the monthly income as only Rs. 4,500.

He filed an interim application before the Court with a quotation of Rs. 16,23,61 from a private company for a prosthetic leg. This was opposed by the insurer, which contended that it was only an estimate.

The insurance company contended that the appellant failed to prove his foreign employment and his salary. It was also argued that appellant did not produce any document to show that he incurred money for replacement of the limb even though the award was passed 5 years after the accident. It thus opposed the enhancement of award.

The Court noted that the appellant was only 24 years old at the time of the accident and remarked that he has to be compensated for the inability to lead a full life and enjoy those things and amenities that he would have been able to but for the accident, including mobility, earning capacity, marriage prospects, social confidence, etc.

Seeing that the appellant had produced his passport with visa to prove his employment, the Court observed that there was no reason to disbelieve that he held a job abroad. However, since no documents were produced to show the actually salary drawn, the Court thought that income can be taken as Rs. 7,000 per month instead of Rs. 4,500. As loss of income is for a period of 12 months, the Court felt that Rs. 84000 has to be given to him under the head.

As the Tribunal had not added future prospects to notional income, the Court took multiplier as 18, 40% of income, and 80% permanent disability suffered to award ₹16,93,440/- under the head compensation for permanent disability instead of ₹7,77,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Next, the Court looked in detail into whether the amount awarded for prosthetic leg needed enhancement.

“A modern prosthetic limb capable of restoring reasonable mobility is often expensive and advanced models may need replacement every few years. Denial of adequate compensation would compel the claimant to live with inferior mobility and diminished dignity. The object of compensation is, as far as money can, to restore the injured person to a position approximating the one he would have occupied but for the accident. Hence, while determining compensation in such cases, the Tribunal should ensure that the award is realistic, future-oriented and sufficiently substantial to secure the claimant a functional prosthetic limb throughout his life with dignity and independence,” the Court remarked.

It relied on Apex Court decisions in Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways and Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, wherein Rs.3,00,000/- per limb was granted on a standard basis for 7 prosthetic limbs and it was observed that prosthetic limbs require replacement once in 5 years.

Following the parameters in the afore decisions, the Court considered that the appellant would require 8 prosthetic limbs, considering life expectancy of 70 years. It thus awarded, Rs. 24 lakhs for Rs. 3 lakhs per limb and also Rs. 6 lakhs for its periodical maintenance expense.

The Court clarified that the same would not carry interest but the amounts enhanced under other heads would carry interest at 8% per annum excluding the delay period in filing appeal. The insurance company was directed to deposit the amounts within 2 months of the judgment.

Case No: MACA No. 949/2015

Case Title: Ummer C.K. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 282

Counsel for the appellant: M.B. Soori, Balamurali K.P., Haripriya M.

Counsel for the respondents: Latha Susan Cherian

Click to Read/Download Judgment