The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Sri Manab Sen (Deceased) Reptd. By His ... on 12 May, 2023
526 and
Sukhai v. Hukam Chand Jute Mills Ltd. : A.I.R. 1957 Cal.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.48 seconds)Documents citing
Sukhai vs Hukum Chand Jute Mills Ltd. on 22 January, 1957
Achoor Estate vs Nabeesa on 22 February, 1994
7. We may observe that the most of the decisions referred to by learned counsel for the respondents and learned counsel who represented the Commissioner were dealing with Section 4(c)(ii) of the Act before its amendment in 1984. As observed above, before the amendment the words 'as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner' were not present. Those words were added only by Act 22 of 1984. So much so, the decisions in Sukhai v. Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd. AIR 1957 Cal.
Calcutta Licensed Measurers Bengal ... vs Md. Hossain on 29 November, 1968
Hukum Chand Jute Mills' case, was one of scheduled injury and the case was decided on that basis. The present case is one of non-scheduled injury. The difference between the two cases is that in the case of scheduled injury the reduction of earning capacity is determined by the statute itself and prima facie no further investigation is needed to find out the loss of earning capacity.
Mukti Majumder vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 22 November, 2006
The Bench in that case while discussing the two earlier decisions of this court Agent, East Indian Railways v. Maurice Cecil Ryan and Sukhai v. Hukam Chand Jute Mills Ltd. observed in their lucid manner as follows:
Regional Director, Employees State ... vs Milton Francis Calders on 23 February, 1979
13. It is submitted by Mr. Jaykar for the appellant-Corporation that even according to the evidence of Dr. Pandit the employee can do the sitting work and it is further submitted that it is not shown by the employee that he made efforts to obtain work of this kind either from the employer or from anybody else. In the absence of any proof that the employee was unable to get any work, may be siltory work, it is submitted that it cannot be held to be a case of the total loss of earning capacity. Reliance is placed in this behalf upon the decision in Sukhai v. Hukum Chand Jute Mills . It has been observed there that although the accident has not really reduced the capacity of the workman to work he can establish a right to compensation, provided he proves by satisfactory evidence that his labour has become unsaleable and he had applied to a reasonable number of likely employers for employment, but had been turned away on account of the results of the accident visible on his person. It is true that in the instant case, the employee and one witness examined by him by name Shankar Salve state that the employee is unable to do any work. However, their evidence does not show that the employee had made efforts (to obtain some work which he could do. As pointed out above, Dr. Pandit stated that he could do the sitting work. The evidence of the employee and the witness Shankar to the effect that the employee is not able to do any work is obviously unacceptable in view of the evidence of Dr. Pandit to the effect that the employee can do the sitting work. In view of this position, it will be difficult to hold that the employee has succeeded in proving that there is total loss in the earning capacity. Even though the employee may not be able to work as a fitter, the evidence of Dr. Pand it shows that he can do some other work though certainly that work may not fetch him any substantial earning.
1