Lost a Limb in an Accident? You Can Claim Full Prosthetic Cost

If you lost a limb in a road accident, you are entitled to compensation that pays for every prosthetic limb you will need across your whole life, plus its lifelong maintenance. The Supreme Court has held that a court cannot cap this at the cheap government-notified rate of around twenty to twenty-five thousand rupees. A prosthetic limb wears out and must be replaced roughly every five years, so the law treats it as a recurring cost, not a one-time purchase.

This is the principle the Supreme Court applied on 21 April 2026 in Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways and Anr., 2026 INSC 396 (also reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 407). A bus had crushed the appellant's leg in 2007, and his right leg was amputated below the knee. The trial Tribunal and the High Court gave him nothing at all for an artificial limb. The Supreme Court fixed that, and the way it did so is now the rule every Tribunal must follow.

The Court started from a simple legal duty. Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) must award “just compensation”. Justice K.V. Viswanathan, writing for a bench that also included Justice J.B. Pardiwala, applied the old principle of restitutio in integrum, which in plain English means restoring the victim, as far as money can, to the position he was in before the accident.

A prosthetic limb does that better than anything else, so the Court treated its full lifelong cost as something the victim is entitled to recover. Two things follow from this.

First, the Court flatly rejected the cheap rate. The insurance company pointed to a Government of India notification dated 9 July 2024 that suggested a price of only around twenty thousand to twenty-five thousand rupees. The Court said it had “no hesitation in rejecting” those rates, calling them “abysmally low”. A victim is entitled to a prosthesis of reasonable quality from a provider of his own choice, not the cheapest option a defendant can find.

Second, the Court confirmed that a prosthetic limb is a recurring expense. Following its own earlier ruling in Chandra Mogera v. Santosh A. Ganachari, the Court accepted that an artificial limb lasts about five years and must then be replaced, and that compensation is calculated up to an assumed life span of seventy years.

The appellant was thirty-two when the accident happened. Taking seventy years as the assumed life span and a five-year life for each limb, the Court held he would need seven prosthetic limbs over his lifetime. It then priced each limb and added a lifelong maintenance sum. The figures below are the actual heads the Supreme Court awarded.

The prosthetic limb and maintenance heads alone came to ₹26,00,000. The insurance company (Respondent No. 2) was directed to pay the total of ₹36,20,350 within four weeks, failing which interest of 9 percent a year would run.

Many claims fail because the family asks only for the price of one artificial limb fitted soon after the accident. That is the mistake the cheap government rate encourages. A modern limb has moving parts, a socket that must be refitted as the body changes, and components that wear out. Courts now accept that a limb realistically lasts about five years. A person injured young will therefore buy several limbs across a lifetime. Compensation has to fund all of them, plus the cost of keeping each one working. That is exactly why the Court multiplied the price of one limb by the number of replacement cycles to age seventy.

1. File before the MACT. A claim for injury or death in a road accident is filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the area where the accident happened, where you live, or where the vehicle owner or insurer is based. There is no upper limit on the amount you can claim.
2. Name the right parties. The claim is usually filed against the driver, the owner of the offending vehicle, and its insurer. In practice the insurer pays.
3. Prove the accident and the injury. Use the FIR, the charge sheet, the medical and amputation records, and the disability certificate.
4. Quantify every head separately. Medical bills, loss of income, future medical and prosthetic needs, pain and suffering, and attendant costs are each claimed and proved on their own.
5. Appeal if the award is low. If the Tribunal ignores or undervalues the prosthetic-limb head, you can appeal to the High Court, and in a fit case to the Supreme Court, exactly as Prahlad Sahai did.

• Disability certificate stating the level and percentage of disability
• Amputation and discharge summary from the treating hospital
• Price quotations from at least two or three prosthetic providers for the current cost of the limb and its yearly maintenance
• Proof of age (to fix the number of replacement cycles to age seventy)
• Proof of occupation and income, to support loss of earning capacity
• The FIR and charge sheet linking the injury to the accident

The quotation rule is not optional. In Chandra Mogera the Court directed that every prosthetic-limb claim must come with quotes from two or three service providers so the Tribunal can assess the real future cost. Do not leave the price to guesswork, and do not let anyone fit you to a government rate sheet.

• Treating the limb as a one-time cost. It is recurring; claim every replacement to age seventy (Chandra Mogera).
• Accepting the notified rate. The 9 July 2024 government rate of about ₹20,000 to ₹25,000 was rejected as abysmally low in 2026 INSC 396.
• Filing without quotations. A claim with no provider quotes invites a token award.
• Forgetting maintenance. Annual upkeep is a separate, recoverable head, awarded here as a consolidated ₹5,00,000.
• Under-claiming loss of income. Lack of salary slips is not fatal; the Court accepted a driver's stated ₹6,000 a month on the surrounding evidence.

The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a quiet but powerful tool here. You can file an RTI with the relevant government hospital or limb-fitting centre to obtain the official current price list and fitting protocol, and with the transport authority to confirm the offending vehicle's registration, permit, and insurance details. These records help you prove both the real cost of a prosthesis and the liability of the vehicle owner. You can draft such a request in minutes using the AI RTI Drafter, and if the department stonewalls you, the First Appeal Builder walks you through the next step. For the bigger picture on using information rights to win a claim, see The RTI Playbook.

To the Public Information Officer, [name of government hospital or ALIMCO centre]. Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, please provide: (1) the current official price list for below-knee and above-knee prosthetic limbs fitted at your centre; (2) the recommended replacement interval and the annual maintenance cost per limb; (3) any government notification or order fixing the rates for prosthetic limbs that your centre applies. I enclose the application fee of ₹10. Kindly supply the information within 30 days.

No. In 2026 INSC 396 the Supreme Court rejected the roughly ₹20,000 to ₹25,000 government-notified rate as abysmally low and held you are entitled to a reasonable-quality limb of your own choice.

As many as you will need to age seventy, on the basis that each limb lasts about five years. In Prahlad Sahai, a thirty-two-year-old was awarded seven limbs.

Yes. The Court awarded a separate consolidated ₹5,00,000 for lifelong maintenance, on top of the ₹21,00,000 for the limbs themselves.

Price quotations from at least two or three prosthetic providers. Chandra Mogera makes these mandatory so the Tribunal can assess the true future cost.

Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the place of the accident, your residence, or where the vehicle owner or insurer is located, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

A lack of documents is not fatal. The Court accepted the appellant's stated income of ₹6,000 a month for a driver, relying on the surrounding evidence and the nature of his work.

Yes. You can appeal to the High Court, and in a fit case to the Supreme Court. Prahlad Sahai won his enhancement only on a further appeal after both the Tribunal and the High Court gave him nothing for a prosthesis.

• Supreme Court of India, Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways and Anr., 2026 INSC 396, judgment dated 21 April 2026 (Viswanathan and Pardiwala, JJ.), Civil Appeal No. 4642 of 2026.
• 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 407.
• The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166 and 168.
• Chandra Mogera v. Santosh A. Ganachari and Anr. (Supreme Court of India), on mandatory provider quotations and the five-year, age-seventy replacement formula.

• AI RTI Drafter to draft an RTI to a hospital or transport authority
• First Appeal Builder if your RTI is ignored or refused
• The RTI Act, 2005 full text and section guide

This guide is informational and is not a substitute for advice from a lawyer on your specific claim. Reviewed for accuracy by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak.