2018 ALL SCR 2241
SUPREME COURT
KURIAN JOSEPH, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
Arun Kumar Jha Vs. Ranvir Singh & Anr.
Civil Appeal No.10880 of 2018
1st November, 2018.
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. GAGAN GUPTA, Mr. SAURABH GUPTA, Ms. MANJU JETLEY
Respondent Counsel: Mr. RAJEEV M. ROY, Mr. P. SRINIVASAN, Mr. RAJEEV MAHESHWARANAND ROY
Employees' Compensation Act (1923), S.4 - Compensation - Claimant-driver suffered 100% functional disability - However, Commissioner granted compensation of Rs.3,87,187/- with penalty thereby denying benefit of functional disablement - Considering 100% functional disability suffered by claimant he was held entitled to further compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 2008 ALL SCR 1664 Rel. on. (Paras 5, 6)
Cases Cited:
K. Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Another, 2008 ALL SCR 1664=(2008) 8 SCC 518 [Para 3]
Kalema Tumba Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (1999) 8 SCC 257 [Para 5]
JUDGMENT
KURIAN JOSEPH, J. :- Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. There is no appearance for respondent No.1/owner.
3. This is a case where the appellant was denied the benefit of functional disability. In view of the judgment of this Court in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 518 : [2008 ALL SCR 1664], 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 Commissioner, Workmen Compensation has granted compensation only to the tune of Rs.3,87,187/- with penalty.
4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has vehemently contended that the benefit of the amendment introduced in the year 2009 cannot be extended to the appellant since the date of incident is prior to the amendment.
5. 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. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has pitched the claims to around Rs.20 Lacs including the penalty component and other aspects, 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. Ordered accordingly.
6. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to pay this amount of Rs.10 Lacs to the appellant, within a period of three months from today. In case, the said amount is not paid within three months from today, the appellant will be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident.
7. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.