Supreme Court of India
K. JANARDHAN versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
- Decided
- 9 May 2008
- Judges listed
- TARUN CHATTERJEE
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2008] 8 S.C.R. 157 · 2008 INSC 624
- Also cited as
- (2008) 8 SCC 518
- (2008) 2 SCC(L&S) 733
- AIR 2008 SC 2384
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.
- SIDRAM versus THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.
- PAPPU DEO YADAV versus NARESH KUMAR AND ORS.
- MOHAN SONI versus RAM AVTAR TOMAR AND ORS.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October, 2001 of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court whereby compensation of Rs.2,49,576/- awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has been reduced to Rs.1,62,224.40/-. It arises from the following facts.
p. 159, margin A
The claimant- appellant a tanker driver, while driving his vehicle from Ayanoor towards Shimoga met with an accident with a tractor coming from the opposite side. As a result of the accident, the appellant suffered serious injuries and also an amputation of the right leg up to the knee joint. He thereupon moved an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation praying that as he was 25 years of age and earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and had suffered 100% disability, he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 5 lac by way of compensation. The Commissioner in his 01der dated 18th November, 1999 observed that the claimant was 30 years of age and the salary as claimed by him was on the higher side and accordingly determined the same at Rs. 2000/- per month. The Commissioner also found that as the claimant had suffered an amputation of his right leg up to the knee, he was said to have suffered a loss of 100% of his earning capacity as a driver and accordingly determined the compensation payable to him at Rs. 2,49,576/- and interest @ 12% p.a. thereon from the date of the accident. An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court by the Insurance Company- respondent. The High Court accepted the plea raised in appeal that as per the Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, the loss of a leg on amputation amounted to a 60% reduction in the earning capacity and as the doctor had opined to a 65% disability, this figure was to be accepted and accordingly reduced the compensation as already mentioned above. It is in this circumstance, that the aggrieved claimant has come up to this court.
p. 159, margin A
The learned counsel for the appellant has raised only one argument during the course of the hearing. ted that the claimant - appellant being a tanker of his right leg ipso facto meant a total disablement stood in terms of Section 2(1)(e) of the Workmen's sation Act and as such the appellant was entitled compensation computed on that basis. In support of the learned counsel has placed reliance on Pratap Deo vs. Srinivas Sabata & Anr. (1976) 1 SCC case pertained to a carpenter who had suffered of his left arm from the elbow and this court amounted to a total disability as the injury was of that the claimant had been disabled from all work capable of performing at the time of the accident. served as under:
pp. 159–160, margin H
The expression "total disablement" has Section 2( 1 )( e) of the Act as follows: "(1) 'total disablement' means such disablement whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as workman for all work which he was capable at the time of the accident resulting in such It has not been disputed before us that the such a nature as to cause permanent disablement respondent, and the question for consideration the disablement incapacitated the respondent for which he was capable of performing at accident. The Commissioner has examined and recorded his finding as follows: "The injured workman in this case is profession .... By loss of the left hand above has evidently been rendered unfit for the work as the work of carpentry cannot be done only." This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding. for the appellant has not been able to assail ground and it does not require to be corrected in appeal. There is also no justification for the other argument which has been advanced with reference to Item 3 of Part II of Schedule 1, because it was not the appellant's before the Commissioner that amputation of the arm from 8" from tip of acromion to less than 4 below the of olecranon. A new case cannot therefore be allowed be set up on facts which have not been admitted established.
pp. 160–161, margin C
Applying the ratio of the cited judgment to the facts of the present case we are of the opinion that the appellant herein has also suffered a 100% disability and incapacity in earning his keep as a tanker driver as his right leg had been amputated from the knee. Additionally, a perusal of Sections 8 and 9 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 would show ttiat the appellant would now be disqualified from even getting a driving licence.
p. 161, margin B
We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Commissioner but no order as to costs. B.B.B. Appeal allowed.
p. 161, margin D