SC: The disablement has incapacitated him from doing the work which he was capable of doing; the case of the appellant will be covered by the definition of ‘total disablement’

 

 The issue before the SC was whether the appellant suffered from total disablement, which is defined in clause (l) of sub-section (1) of section (2) of the said Act.

Court found that the doctor has clearly stated that the appellant has suffered from functional loss of 100% of the right upper limb and cannot perform the job of a driver forever due to amputation of his right upper limb. There is no dispute that the appellant suffered from disablement of permanent nature.

Brief Facts:

The appellant was an employee of the second respondent. He was doing the job of driving an auto-rickshaw used as a goods carrier. On 18th February 2009, while the appellant was driving the vehicle, he suddenly noticed a pothole on the road. Therefore, he applied brakes. As a result, the vehicle went out of control, and it overturned. The appellant sustained severe injuries. The vehicle was insured with the first respondent company. The appellant filed a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1983, now titled as the Employees Compensation Act 1923. The claim was filed on the footing that due to amputation of his right upper limb above the wrist joint, he has completely lost the capacity to drive a vehicle. He contended that he had suffered total disablement due to the said injury. The learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation allowed the petition by upholding the said contention. The learned Commissioner held that due to amputation of the right upper limb, he has rendered himself unfit for driving a vehicle and, therefore, the appellant has suffered total disablement. The first respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court. The appeal was partly allowed by holding that the disability ought to have been assessed as 70% partial permanent disability instead of 100%. To that extent, the compensation was reduced.

Appellant’s Contention: 

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as a result of amputation of the right upper limb above wrist joint, the appellant will not be in a position to discharge his duty as a driver. Therefore, it is a case of total disablement.

 

Respondent’s Contention:

Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant suffered from permanent partial disability to the extent of 40%. He submitted that the Commissioner committed an error by proceeding on the footing that the appellant suffered from total disablement. He submitted that Section 4 of the said Act is mandatory. Therefore, the case of the appellant was of partial

 permanent disability. He urged that the first respondent will not be liable to pay compensation as the appellant did not possess a driving licence to drive a commercial goods carrier. 

 

SC’s Observations:

After hearing both the sides Court observed that the only ground on which the High Court reduced the compensation was that the appellant did not suffer from total disablement. SC observed that the first respondent cannot dispute its liability to pay compensation as the High Court has held the said respondent liable. The first respondent has not challenged the impugned Judgment. Therefore, the argument that the appellant did not possess a driving licence to drive a commercial goods vehicle is not open to the first respondent.

 

Now the issue before the SC was whether the appellant suffered from total disablement, which is defined in clause (l) of sub-section (1) of section (2) of the said Act.

Court found that in paragraph 4, the doctor has clearly stated that the appellant has suffered from functional loss of 100% of the right upper limb and cannot perform the job of a driver forever due to amputation of his right upper limb. There is no dispute that the appellant suffered from disablement of permanent nature.

SC Held:

 

After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “the disablement has incapacitated him from doing the work which he was capable of doing. The said work was of driving a vehicle. Therefore, the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was right in holding that the disability of the appellant will have to be treated as 100% disability. Hence, the case of the appellant will be covered by the definition of ‘total disablement’. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and will have to be set aside.”

Bench: J. Ajay Rastogi and J. Abhay S. Oka

Case Title: Arjun SO. Ramanna v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

 

Case Details: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1555 OF 2022 [@ SLP(C) No.26384 of 2019]

 

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure