Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.22 seconds)
Documents citing Mrs. Balamanohari vs M/S. Sri Venkateswara College Of ... on 27 April, 2018

The Managing Director vs Bharanidharan on 29 August, 2019

8.PW3/Doctor categorically stated that the claimant sustained 60% permanent disability and 35% partial permanent disability in the left leg and the disability certificate issued by PW3 has been marked as Ex.P.14. The right leg of the claimant was amputated above knee. The photograph produced by this Court would also demonstrate serious nature of injury caused to the claimant. Even as per the Employees Compensation Act also, for amputation of leg above knee 60% disability has to be determined which was rightly determined by the Tribunal and therefore, the said determination cannot be disturbed. Since, the claimant is the 4th year B.Tech., (Mechanical Engineer) student from Dr.M.G.R. Engineering College, Rs.15,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is not appropriate. Even though Mr.K.J.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the transport corporation could find fault with the Tribunal for having fixed the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per month, this Court in a similar case http://www.judis.nic.in 6/13 C.M.A.Nos.3257 & 3271 of 2019 for an Engineering student determined the notional income at Rs.20,000/- per month in Balamanohari and another Vs. Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering and others reported in 2018 (2) TNMAC 81. It is also proved that the claimant is a bright student and therefore, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is determined as monthly income.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

Mydeenkhan vs M.Rafee on 26 March, 2019

7. Countering the above submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the deceased was only a student pursuing I year course in B.E. Hence, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.15,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. The judgment relied on by the Tribunal relates to the deceased pursuing final year course and hence, the said judgment relied upon by the Tribunal, is not applicable to the case on hand while fixing the notional monthly income of Page No.5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3265 of 2019 the deceased. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company further submitted that Rs.5 lakhs awarded towards medical expenses also does not appear to be on the lower side. Absolutely, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are just and proper and the same had been awarded by assigning well-considered reasons, and hence, according to the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- Insurance Company, there is no reason to enhance the amount awarded by the Tribunal and thus, he prayed for dismissing the appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

M/S.Royal Sundaram Alliance vs P.Valli on 10 March, 2023

In this context, this Court is fortified by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Balamanohari and Others Vs. Sri.Venkateswara College of Engineering and Others reported in 2018 (2) TNMAC 81 (DB), in which, in paragraph No.49 (iii) it has been held that such proceedings relating to recovery of the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle shall be done in the very same execution proceedings.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1