Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a Tribunal bound by the price range in the Government of India notification when awarding an amputee compensation under the head of prosthetic limb?

No. Applying restitutio in integrum, the disabled individual is entitled to opt for a prosthetic limb from a private centre, and if the provision chosen and claimed is reasonable it is no answer for the defendant to point to cheaper options. The Court had 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 only caveat is that the claim should be reasonable.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.168 — Just compensation — Prosthetic limb — Restitutio in integrum — Assumed life span of seventy years — Block of five years — Government Notification rates — Functional disability — Future prospects — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.168 — Prosthetic limb — Restitutio in integrum — Government rates not binding — Held: Restitutio in integrum entitles an amputee to procure a prosthetic limb of his own choice from a private centre; where the provision claimed is reasonable it is no answer for the defendant to point to cheaper options. The rates in the Government Notification, being abysmally low, are rejected. (¶26, 27) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.168 — Prosthetic limb — Assumed life span seventy years — Block of five years — Held further: Compensation for a prosthetic limb is computed on an assumed life span of seventy years with a block of five years as the reasonable replacement period, so a claimant aged thirty-two at the accident needs seven limbs, besides maintenance cost. (¶30, 31, 33) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.168 — Prosthetic limb — Quotations from service providers — Held further: A claim for compensation under the head of prosthetic limb must be accompanied with requisite quotations from at least two or three service providers, enabling the Tribunal to make an informed assessment of the actual cost. (¶29) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.168 — Monthly income — No documentary evidence — Functional disability — Held further: Documentary evidence of income cannot be expected from persons employed in that strata of income, and an amputated driver who can no longer drive heavy vehicles has a functional disability of hundred per cent. Appeal allowed. (¶35, 39)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways & Anr. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India