Supreme Court Awards Enhanced Compensation for Driver with Amputated Leg: Arun Kumar Jha vs. Ranvir Singh (2018)

Date of the Judgment: November 1, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 976
Judges: Kurian Joseph, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
Can a person with an amputated leg be considered 100% functionally disabled, especially when their job requires physical mobility? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving a driver who suffered a leg amputation due to an accident. The court’s decision clarified the extent of functional disability in such cases and awarded enhanced compensation. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, with the opinion authored by Justice Kurian Joseph.

Case Background

This case involves an appeal by Arun Kumar Jha, a driver who suffered an injury resulting in the amputation of his right leg below one-third of the thigh. The accident led to a claim for compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act. The Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, granted compensation of Rs. 3,87,187 along with a penalty. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking enhanced compensation, arguing that his functional disability was 100% due to the amputation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case reached the Supreme Court after the appellant, Arun Kumar Jha, was dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. The appellant argued that the nature of his injury, specifically the amputation of his right leg, constituted a 100% functional disability, especially given his profession as a driver. The Insurance Company, however, contended that the benefit of the amendment introduced in the year 2009 could not be extended to the appellant since the date of incident was prior to the amendment.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Another, (2008) 8 SCC 518, which established that an amputation of the right leg below one-third of the thigh results in a 100% functional disability for a driver. The court also considered the judgment in Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (1999) 8 SCC 257, to address the contention of the Insurance Company regarding the applicability of the 2009 amendment. The court did not specify any specific section or statute.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the amputation of his right leg below one-third of the thigh constitutes a 100% functional disability, especially considering his profession as a driver.
• The appellant sought enhanced compensation, including the penalty component and other aspects, pitching the claim around Rs. 20 Lacs.
• The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Another, (2008) 8 SCC 518, which recognized 100% functional disability in similar cases.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Insurance Company contended that the benefit of the amendment introduced in the year 2009 cannot be extended to the appellant since the date of the incident was prior to the amendment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the appellant, a driver with an amputated right leg below one-third of the thigh, is entitled to 100% functional disability.
• Whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Another, (2008) 8 SCC 518 – Supreme Court of India: This case established that an amputation of the right leg below one-third of the thigh results in a 100% functional disability for a driver.
• Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (1999) 8 SCC 257 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to address the Insurance Company’s contention regarding the applicability of the 2009 amendment.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the established legal position regarding functional disability in cases of amputation, especially for drivers. The court emphasized the precedent set in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Another, (2008) 8 SCC 518, which clearly stated that a driver with an amputation of the right leg below one-third of the thigh is considered to have 100% functional disability. The court also considered the need for fair compensation, given the severe impact of such an injury on the appellant’s earning capacity and quality of life. The court rejected the Insurance Company’s argument about the inapplicability of the 2009 amendment by relying on the decision in Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (1999) 8 SCC 257.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the established legal precedent. The court stated, “In view of the judgment of this Court in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 518, the law is well settled that being a driver, in the nature of injury resulting in amputation of right leg below one third the thigh, there cannot be any dispute that there is 100% functional disability.” The court also observed, “We are afraid that this contention cannot be appreciated since the position is covered against the respondents by a decision of this Court in Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 257.” Finally, the court concluded, “having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this is a case where a further compensation of a lump sum amount of Rs.10 Lacs will be just, fair and proper.” The bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• A driver with an amputation of the right leg below one-third of the thigh is considered to have 100% functional disability.
• The Supreme Court can enhance compensation awarded by lower authorities if it deems it inadequate.
• The applicability of amendments is determined by the date of the incident, not the date of the claim.

Directions

The respondent No. 2/Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 10 Lacs to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of the judgment. If the amount was not paid within three months, the appellant would be entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a driver with an amputation of the right leg below one-third of the thigh is considered to have 100% functional disability, and the Supreme Court can enhance compensation awarded by lower authorities if it deems it inadequate. This case reinforces the existing legal position established in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Another, (2008) 8 SCC 518.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Arun Kumar Jha vs. Ranvir Singh (2018) provides clarity on the issue of functional disability for drivers with amputated legs. By awarding enhanced compensation, the court ensured that the appellant received just and fair compensation for his injury. The judgment reinforces the principle that the nature of the injury and its impact on the individual’s ability to perform their job must be considered while determining compensation.

Category

Parent Category: Workmen Compensation Act, 1923
Child Category: Functional Disability, Workmen Compensation Act, 1923
Child Category: Enhanced Compensation, Workmen Compensation Act, 1923

Parent Category: Motor Accidents
Child Category: Functional Disability, Motor Accidents
Child Category: Enhanced Compensation, Motor Accidents

Parent Category: Insurance Law
Child Category: Functional Disability, Insurance Law
Child Category: Enhanced Compensation, Insurance Law

FAQ

Q: What does ‘functional disability’ mean in the context of this case?
A: Functional disability refers to the extent to which a person’s physical or mental condition limits their ability to perform daily activities and work. In this case, it refers to the impact of the leg amputation on the driver’s ability to work.

Q: How did the Supreme Court determine the extent of functional disability in this case?
A: The Supreme Court relied on its previous judgment in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Another, which established that a driver with an amputation of the right leg below one-third of the thigh has 100% functional disability.

Q: What was the outcome of the case?
A: The Supreme Court awarded a further lump sum compensation of Rs. 10 Lacs to the appellant, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: The judgment clarifies that a driver with an amputation of the right leg below one-third of the thigh is considered to have 100% functional disability, and it reinforces the principle that fair compensation should be awarded based on the impact of the injury on the individual’s ability to work.