Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.21 seconds)
Documents citing Nasimbanu Wd/O Sirajuddin Amruddin ... vs Ramjibhai Bachubhai Ahir on 11 February, 2005

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Manimegalai on 19 December, 2016

“....11.As rightly held in Nasimbanu's case relied on by the claimants, where a claimant can avail one remedy against the employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, he is not debarred from claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act agaisnt the tortfeasor. In Bidami's case relied on by the claimants also, it has been held that since the benefits accruing and flowing from the two different enactments flow in two different streams and such claim is made against different parties; employer in one case and tortfeasor other than employer in another case, one compensation does not militate or offend against other compensation and that the claimants are entitled to both compensation and one cannot be set off or deducted from the other.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - M V Muralidaran - Full Document

Ushaben Wd/O. Jashubhai Rana And 3 Ors. vs General Manager, Ongc And 3 Ors. on 23 December, 2005

2.23B We have gone through the said judgment. Short summary of facts of the said case was that sirajuddin Amruddin Kazi, the deceased was a driver of a tanker belonging to Kavina Transport Company owned by Ramjibhai Hirabhai Ahir and the said truck was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. The accident took place on 23.12.1987 when the deceased was going from Ahmedabad to Vadodara and the offending vehicle-truck bearing Registration No. GQY 4478 driven by Ramjibhai Bachubhai Ahir dashed against the tanker driven by Sirajuddin A.Kazi, as a result of which the deceased died leaving behind the plaintiffs/claimants. In the said matter, a claim for compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest was made. The trial court, after recording evidence of parties, held that the claimants/plaintiffs before it were entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,12,000/- with interest at the rate of 12%. Against the said award, both the parties filed appeals. The claimants sought further compensation, while the Insurance Company prayed for setting aside of the award. A question arose in the said matter that the compensation paid by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, could be deducted from the total amount found awardable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Division Bench of this Court observed that the amount paid by the master to the successors/dependants of the workman could not be deducted. Placing reliance upon the said finding recorded by the Division Bench, it is sought to be strenuously argued that the amount which may be received or is receivable by the claimants/plaintiffs cannot be deducted from the amount payable to the plaintiffs.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - R S Garg - Full Document

L And T Insurance Co Ltd vs Bindudevi Samharu Yadav on 19 January, 2026

25. The gist of the aforesaid judgments referred hereinabove is that the bar of Section 167 of MV Act is applied only where the claimants seek compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act from the employer and insurer. When the parties before the both forums are entirely different, the bar of Section 167 of the MV Act would not apply. The liability under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is the statutory liability of the employer while the liability under Section 166 of the MV Act is tortious liability. If the claimants have already claimed the compensation from the employer and insurer under the Workmen's Page 25 of 29 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Jan 20 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:35:37 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/517/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined Compensation Act, they cannot claim the compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act from the employer and insurer; however, they can claim the compensation from the tortfeasors other than the employer and insurer of the deceased or injured. Thus, considering the legal proposition as emerges from the set of judgments referred above, the learned Tribunal had not committed any error in relying upon the ratio of judgment of the Divisional Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Nasimbanu (supra). Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company is not acceptable and hence rejected.
Gujarat High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next