http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5831 OF 2002

K. Janardhan ......Appellant

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

JUDGMENT

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 6th 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.

2. The claimant- appellant a tanker driver, while driving his

vehicle from Ayanoor towards Shimoga met with an accident

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

2

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 order 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 3 of 5

3

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.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised only one

argument during the course of the hearing . He has submitted

that the claimant - appellant being a tanker driver, the loss of

his right leg ipso facto meant a total disablement as

understood in terms of Section 2(1)(e) of the Workmen’s

Compensation Act and as such the appellant was entitled to

have his compensation computed on that basis. In support of

this plea, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Pratap

Narain Singh Deo vs. Srinivas Sabata & Anr. (1976) 1

SCC 289. The cited case pertained to a carpenter who had

suffered an amputation of his left arm from the elbow and this

court held that this amounted to a total disability as the injury

was of such a nature that the claimant had been disabled

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 4 of 5

4

from all work which he was capable of performing at the time

of the accident. It was observed as under:

5. The expression "total disablement" has been

defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act as follows:

"(1) ‘total disablement’ means such

disablement whether of a temporary or

permanent nature, as incapacitates workman

for all work which he was capable of

performing at the time of the accident

resulting in such disablement."