The Kerala High Court has ruled that when assessing compensation for a person who has lost a leg in a motor accident, courts and tribunals must adopt a humane and realistic approach regarding the cost of a prosthetic limb. The court emphasized that a prosthetic limb is not a one-time expense but requires periodic replacement, maintenance, physiotherapy, and adaptation throughout the claimant's lifetime.
Case Background
Justice M B Snehalatha issued the ruling while enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Thalassery, to a 30-year-old man from Kannur who was involved in a road accident in 2008. The accident occurred when a car collided with the motorcycle he was riding, resulting in the amputation of his right leg above the knee. The MACT had awarded compensation of Rs 19.54 lakh with interest at 8% per annum, of which only Rs 3.97 lakh was allocated towards the prosthetic limb. Aggrieved by the award, the claimant approached the High Court by way of appeal.
Court's Observations
Considering the appeal, the High Court noted that the cost of a prosthetic limb is not a one-time expense and merely awarding the present cost of an artificial limb would be wholly inadequate. A young person would require several replacements over the course of his lifetime, particularly as advances in prosthetic technology and normal wear and tear make periodic renewal inevitable. Compensation must, therefore, include future medical expenses, recurring replacement costs, rehabilitation expenses, and loss of amenities of life.
The court further observed that the amputation could adversely affect not only the claimant's career prospects but also his social and matrimonial opportunities, causing permanent mental agony and loss of self-esteem. The assessment of compensation must, therefore, take into account pain and suffering, loss of expectation and enjoyment of life, emotional trauma, and the reduced capacity to lead a normal life.
Enhanced Compensation
Accordingly, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 54.98 lakh, including Rs 24 lakh towards the artificial limb and Rs 6 lakh towards its maintenance. It also enhanced the compensation under the disability head from Rs 7.77 lakh to Rs 16.93 lakh. The court reiterated that the object of compensation is, as far as money can achieve, to restore the injured person to a position approximating that which he would have occupied but for the accident. Therefore, while determining compensation in such cases, tribunals must ensure that the award is realistic, future-oriented, and sufficiently substantial to secure for the claimant a functional prosthetic limb throughout his life, enabling him to live with dignity and independence.
