PRAHLAD SAHAI Vs. HARYANA ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. In a poignant passage, Lord Brooke in David Pinnington vs. Crossleigh [[2003] EWCA Civ 1684] observed:

(2.) The primary issue in this case concerns the jurisprudential basis for the computation and award of compensation under the head of "Prosthetic Limb", in motor accident cases.

(3.) Leave granted. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dtd. 21/8/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1661/2017. By the said Order, the High Court, while partly allowing the appeal of the appellant, enhanced the compensation awarded from Rs.8,73,211.00 (as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') to Rs.13,02,043.00.