Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Kamal Kumar Jain vs Tazuddin And Ors. on 22 March, 2004

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Raj Kumar Vishwakarma & Anr on 27 October, 2022

When the facts of the present case are taken into consideration in the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this High Court in Kamal Kumar Jain versus Tazuddin & Others (supra) alongwith the Schedule appended to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and keeping in view the fact that 40% permanent disability has been certified by the doctor for one leg then the total disability for the whole body will not be more than 20%.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Chandra Shekhar Mishra & Anr on 27 October, 2022

Thus, when the Full Bench Judgment of this High Court in Kamal Kumar Jain versus Tazuddin & Others (supra) is taken into consideration Signature Not Verified SAN then the ends of justice will meet if 50% permanent disablement is taken into Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.10.31 10:32:19 IST consideration because the Labour Court has failed to marshal the evidence and 5 refer to the Schedule appended to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt.Indra Bai & Anr on 31 October, 2022

When the facts of the present case are taken into consideration in the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this High Court in Kamal Kumar Jain versus Tazuddin & Others (supra) alongwith the Schedule appended to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and keeping in view the fact that 40% permanent disability has been certified by the doctor for one leg then the total disability for the whole body will not be more than 20%.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Com.Ltd. vs Kailash & Anr on 31 October, 2022

When the facts of the present case are taken into consideration in the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this High Court in Kamal Kumar Jain versus Tazuddin & Others (supra) alongwith the Schedule appended to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and keeping in view the fact that 40% permanent disability has been certified by the doctor for one leg then the total disability for the whole body will not be more than 40%.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Comany vs Hifazat Hussain Ansari on 27 October, 2022

When the facts of the present case are taken into consideration in the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this High Court in Kamal Kumar Jain versus Tazuddin & Others (supra) then the ends of justice will meet if 40% permanent disablement is taken into consideration because the Labour Court has failed to marshal the evidence and refer to the Schedule appended to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Sudha Jain vs Mahendra Kumar Jain And Ors. on 29 September, 2005

She has undergone treatment from 10.5.1993 to November 1995, i.e., more than one and half years. She has suffered 50 per cent disablement in her leg. Her leg is shortened by 1.5". The counsel for the respondent insurance company has relied on Full Bench judgment of this Court in case of Kamal Kumar Jain v. Tazuddin , to state that permanent disablement cannot be proved without scientific test. It is true that the Full Bench of this Court in that case has held that in a case of fracture permanent disablement can be proved only after the scientific test. However, that is not a universal rule because in case of amputation and shortening of leg permanent disablement is apparent. In the present case the leg of the claimant is shortened by 1.5". This fact is proved by the statement of Dr. Midda, AW 3 and in such circumstances it is not necessary to prove the said disablement by scientific test. Hence I hold that the appellant has suffered 50 per cent permanent disablement in her leg. The question is up to what extent this permanent disablement has affected the earning capacity of the claimant. The claimant is a housewife. Her income on the notional basis is Rs. 15,000 per year. Shortening of leg is to the extent of 1.5" will not affect her working capacity to the extent of 50 per cent though it may affect her working capacity to the extent of 10 per cent. Thus this accident has affected her working capacity to the extent of 10 per cent that means she has suffered a loss of Rs. 1,500 per year. Her age is 35 years and if multiplier of 16 is applied, then her loss of income comes to Rs. 24,600 rounded to Rs. 25,000. The medical bills which are on record show that she spent Rs. 1,69,109.80 on her medical treatment. The Apex Court in case of 2002 (8) Supreme 497, has laid down that this strict rule of evidence is not applicable to the Claims Tribunal. In the present case bills are on record and even though they are not proved by following strict rules of evidence, still this Court can hold that claimant has spent an amount of Rs. 1,69,109.80 on her medical treatment. Hence, there is no reason for disallowing this claim to her. Hence, it is held that the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,70,000 towards medical expenses. She is entitled to Rs. 25,000 towards loss of income and an amount of Rs. 50,000 towards pain and suffering. Thus the compensation comes to Rs. 2,44,860. Apart from this amount she must have spent some amount towards travelling charges and special diet, etc.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

National Insurance Co Ltd Havind ... vs Raju Prajapati on 14 November, 2017

9. Regarding substantial question of law No. (iii),learned counsel for the appellant No. 3 submits that the findings of Court below whereby without examining the doctor, 100% permanent disability has been assessed is contrary to law laid down by full Bench of this Court in the matter of Kamal Kumar Vs. Tazuddin and Ors., 2004 (2) MPLJ 472 and Omprakash Vs. Raseed Khan and Anr., 2011 (2) MPWN 29. Therefore, according to him, findings given by Courts below are erroneous and contrary to law.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd ... vs Smt Upasana Shakya on 31 March, 2026

14. Appellant's counsel placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Jain (supra). However, the said decision is also of no help to the appellants. In the said case, the Full Bench held that "Mere fracture of bones and its re-union will not amount to permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, unless the doctor has examined the claimant and assessed the percentage of disability after performing scientific tests. Without performing scientific tests bald statement of the doctor and certificate is inadmissible in evidence." The Full Bench thus held that the disability of the claimant cannot be accepted solely Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 3/31/2026 5:39:10 PM 9 M.A.No. 167/2025 based upon the oral testimony of the doctor without performing scientific tests. In the case in hand, it is seen that the disability certificate has been issued by the Medical Board duly constituted under the Act of 2016 and Rules framed thereunder. It is not the case of the appellants that the procedure prescribed under the Act of 2016 has not been followed. Thus, unless the appellant establishes reasonable doubt about the genuineness of the disability certificate, the certificate needs to be accepted.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajendra Patel vs Sandeep Kumre on 11 January, 2024

9. From perusal of impugned award it appears that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,31,625/- (One lakh thirty one thousand six hundred twenty five) towards future loss of income assessing the income of appellant @ Rs.6,000/- per month. In the accident appellant/claimant sustained permanent disability and also furnished disability certificate (Ex.P-22) in this regard, but the Doctor who issued the disability certificate (Ex.P-22) has not been examined before the trial Court. However, keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Kamal Kumar Jain (supra) it appears that the learned tribunal committed error in assessing the permanent disability @ 11.25%, which ought to have been 20% of the whole body.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A N Kesharwani - Full Document
1   2 Next