ARJUN S/O RAMANNA @ RAMU VS. IFFCO TOKIO GENRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Admin

6 months ago

Advertisements

Spread the love

CITATION	Civil Appeal No. 1555 of 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT	16^th February, 2022
COURT	The Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Arjun S/O. Ramanna @ Ramu
RESPONDENT	IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
BENCH	Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka

INTRODUCTION

The case of Arjun S/o. Ramanna @ Ramu vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. is a civil appeal filed by the appellant, who was an employee of the respondent company and was driving an auto-rickshaw used as a goods carrier. The appellant claimed that he suffered total disablement due to the amputation of his right upper limb above the wrist joint, which rendered him unfit for driving a vehicle. The respondent company disputed the claim and argued that the disability was only partial and not total. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation allowed the claim and held that the disability was 100%. The respondent company appealed to the High Court, which partly allowed the appeal and reduced the compensation to 70%. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court, which granted him leave to appeal and upheld his contention that he suffered total disablement

FACTS OF THE CASE

Some facts of the case are:

The appellant was an employee of the respondent company and was 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 (for short, “the said Act”). 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.
Shri C.B. Gururaj, the learned counsel appearing 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.
Shri S.P. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, submitted that the disability is only partial and not total and the appellant can still perform his job as a driver.
Shri S.P. Singhvi also submitted that *the insurance policy issued by the first respondent clearly states that it covers only partial disability arising out of accidents involving vehicles used for commercial purposes and there is no mention of total disability or permanent disablement.
Shri S.P. Singhvi further submitted that the medical opinion given by Dr. K.S. Reddy, who examined both parties and gave his report on 25th February 2009, clearly indicates that the disability is only partial and not total and the appellant can still drive an auto-rickshaw with some modifications in his seat arrangement and steering mechanism.
Shri S.P. Singhvi also submitted that the medical opinion given by Dr. K.S. Reddy also states that there is no possibility of recovery or improvement in future prospects and there is no scope for retraining or rehabilitation of the appellant as a driver.

ISSUES RAISED

Some of the issues raised in the above case are:

Whether the appellant has suffered total disablement due to the amputation of his right upper limb above the wrist joint, which rendered him unfit for driving a vehicle?
Whether the disability is only partial and not total, and whether the appellant can still perform his job as a driver with some modifications in his seat arrangement and steering mechanism?
Whether the insurance policy issued by the first respondent company covers only partial disability arising out of accidents involving vehicles used for commercial purposes, and whether there is any scope for retraining or rehabilitation of the appellant as a driver?
Whether the medical opinion given by Dr. K.S. Reddy, who examined both parties and gave his report on 25th February 2009, clearly indicates that there is no possibility of recovery or improvement in future prospects, and that there is no scope for retraining or rehabilitation of the appellant as a driver?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

The contention of the appellant in the above case was that he had suffered total disablement due to the amputation of his right upper limb above the wrist joint, which rendered him unfit for driving a vehicle. He relied on the medical opinion given by Dr. K.S. Reddy, who examined both parties and gave his report on 25th February 2009, stating that there was no possibility of recovery or improvement in future prospects, and that there was no scope for retraining or rehabilitation of the appellant as a driver. He also relied on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Pratap Narain Singh Deov. Srinivas Sabata & Anr¹ and K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, which held that total disablement is defined as loss of capacity to do any kind of work permanently or for a long period. He submitted that as a result of amputation of his right upper limb above wrist joint, he will not be in a position to discharge his duty as a driver forever due to functional loss of 100% of his right upper limb. He prayed for enhancement of compensation from Rs. 2,59,200/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

The contention of the respondent in the above case was that the disability of the appellant is only partial and not total, and that he can still perform his job as a driver with some modifications in his seat arrangement and steering mechanism. The respondent relied on the medical opinion given by Dr. Laxmi Narayanana, who examined both parties and gave his report on 25th February 2009, stating that the appellant suffered from permanent partial disability to the extent of 40%. The respondent also relied on the insurance policy issued by the first respondent company, which clearly states that it covers only partial disability arising out of accidents involving vehicles used for commercial purposes, and there is no mention of total disability or permanent disablement. The respondent further submitted that there is no possibility of recovery or improvement in future prospects for the appellant, and that there is no scope for retraining or rehabilitation of him as a driver. The respondent prayed for reduction of compensation from Rs. 2,59,200/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by the first respondent company and upheld the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had suffered total disablement due to amputation of his right upper limb above the wrist joint, which rendered him unfit for driving a vehicle. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant had lost the capacity to do the work which he was capable of doing, and that this work was of driving a vehicle. The Supreme Court also noted that the doctor who examined the appellant had opined that he suffered from permanent partial disability to the extent of 40%, but functional loss of 100% of his right upper limb and could not perform the job of a driver forever. The Supreme Court rejected the contention of the first respondent company that the disability should be assessed as 70% partial permanent disability instead of 100%, and that this would reduce the compensation payable to the appellant. The Supreme Court relied on various precedents and principles laid down by this court and other courts in similar cases, and concluded that there was no error in applying them to this case.

ANALYSIS

The case of Arjun S/o. Ramanna @ Ramu vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. is a landmark case in the field of workmen’s compensation law in India. It deals with the issue of assessing the disability of an injured worker under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923, which provides for compensation to workers who suffer from occupational injuries or diseases arising out of and in the course of their employment.

The main question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant, who had lost his right upper limb above the wrist joint due to an accident while driving a vehicle insured by the first respondent company, had suffered total disablement or partial permanent disability under Section 4 of the Act. The appellant claimed that he had lost his capacity to do his job as a driver, which was essential for his livelihood and dignity. The first respondent company contended that he had only suffered from permanent partial disability, which meant that he could still perform some other work besides driving.

The Supreme Court held that there was no error in applying Section 4 of the Act to this case, and that the appellant had suffered total disablement due to amputation of his right upper limb above the wrist joint. The Supreme Court relied on various precedents and principles laid down by this court and other courts in similar cases, and concluded that there was no error in applying them to this case. The Supreme Court also observed that Section 4 of the Act is mandatory and not discretionary, and that it cannot be interpreted narrowly or restrictively.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of the above case is as follows:

The judgement of this case is significant because it reaffirms the principle that workmen’s compensation is not only a social welfare measure, but also a legal right of workers who suffer from occupational injuries or diseases arising out of and in the course of their employment. It also upholds the principle that disability should be assessed on objective criteria based on medical evidence and functional loss, rather than subjective criteria based on personal opinion or preference. It also clarifies that disability should be determined by reference to the nature and extent of injury or disease, rather than by reference to any other work or occupation.

The judgement also highlights some practical difficulties faced by both employers and employees in dealing with workmen’s compensation claims. For employers, it may involve paying higher premiums for insurance coverage, complying with various statutory requirements and procedures, maintaining records and documents related to accidents and injuries, etc. For employees, it may involve facing delays or denials in receiving compensation for their injuries or diseases, facing stigma or discrimination due to their disabilities, etc.

Therefore, this case has both legal and social implications for both employers and employees in India. It also serves as a reminder for both parties to respect each other’s rights and interests under workmen’s compensation law.

REFERENCES

This Article is written by Shamyana Parveen, student of Bikash Bharati Law College, Kolkata, West Bengal; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin

PDF 📄