Arun Kumar Jha vs Ranvir Singh
- SCC(2019) 17 SCC 670
- Neutral2018 INSC 1033
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an injured worker sustains an amputation of the leg below the thigh in the course of employment, the worker is entitled to 100% functional disability benefits regardless of whether the relevant amendment providing for such benefits predates or postdates the date of the injury, provided the claim is decided after the amendment comes into force. The statutory amendment extending functional disability benefits applies retrospectively to cases decided after its enactment even where the injury occurred prior to the amendment, and an insurance company cannot defeat such claims by relying on the temporal distinction between the date of injury and the date of the amendment.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10880/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP (C) NOS.32552 OF 2017)
ARUN KUMAR JHA APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RANVIR SINGH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, 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, 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Compensation has granted compensation only to the NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2018.11.03 12:08:42 IST Reason: tune of Rs.3,87,187/- with penalty. 1
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.
2
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
9. There shall be no orders as to costs.
.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
.......................J. [A.M. KHANWILKAR]
.............................J. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD]
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 01, 2018.
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free