01 November 2018
Supreme Court
Download

ARUN KUMAR JHA Vs RANVIR SINGH

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
Judgment by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: C.A. No.-010880-010880 / 2018
Diary number: 29793 / 2017
Advocates: MANJU JETLEY Vs


1

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

Compensation  has  granted  compensation  only  to  the

tune of Rs.3,87,187/- with penalty.

1

2

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

3

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