An amputation of the right leg up to the knee joint amounts to 100% disability ruled a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Harjit Singh Bedi and Tarun Chatterjee in the case of K Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on May 9, 2008.

In this case, a tanker driver, while driving his vehicle met with an accident with a tractor coming from the opposite side. He suffered serious injuries and had an amputation of the right leg up to the knee joint.

He then 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 observed that the claimant was 30 years old and the salary as claimed by him was on the higher side and accordingly determined the same at Rs. 2000/- per month. He 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.

The insurance company then appealed to the High Court which accepted that as per the Schedule to the Workmen’s 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.

The driver then approached the Supreme Court saying that 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 he was entitled to have compensation computed on that basis.

He relied on Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata & Anr. (1976) 1 SCC 289 in which a carpenter who had suffered an amputation of his left arm from the elbow was held to have suffered a total disability as the injury was of such a nature that the claimant had been disabled from all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. It was observed that:

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.”

Applying the ratio of this judgment to the facts of the present case the Supreme Court held that the driver had also suffered a 100% disability. Under Sections 8 and 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, he would be disqualified from even getting a driving licence.

(This article is an edited extract of the judgment.)