Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)
Documents citing Nepoleon Fernandes vs The Union Of India on 14 November, 1975

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ashokbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel And Ors. on 9 August, 1990

33. The multiplier of 15 has been adopted by the Tribunal and the claimants have submitted that it should have been more and judgments of some of the High Courts have been cited where higher multiplier has been adopted. However, there is no reason for adopting higher multiplier as was adopted in view of the facts and circumstances of the cases reported in Nepoleon Fernandes v. Union of India 1977 ACJ 20 (Bombay), by Bombay High Court, Mohinder Singh v. Gurdial Singh 1978 ACJ 279 (P&H), by Punjab & Haryana High Court and Badibai v. Onkar Lal 1978 ACJ 476 (MP), by Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Shantabai Parshuram Mule And Ors. vs Sharda Prasadsingh And Ors. on 20 November, 1991

8. Mere filing of an application by the appellants for distribution of the amount deposited by the employer before the authority constituted under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act can never be treated as a claim 'instituted' within the meaning of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of that Act. As discussed above, a claim is required to be made under Section 10 and there is nothing to suggest that any claim was made by the appellants as contemplated by that section. All that they did was that they filed an application which they were called upon to do. It may be relevant to repeat here that the application was filed on 18.11.1978 by which time the appellants had already chosen the forum for claiming compensation by filing an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The appellants never called upon the employer to deposit the amount. It was a voluntary act of the employer. It is difficult for this Court to accept that the appellants had instituted a claim as such within the meaning of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and if that is the correct view of the matter, then it follows that there cannot be a bar of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Such is the view expressed in Nepoleon Fernandes v. Union of India 1977 ACJ 20 (Bombay). If there cannot be a bar of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, mere acceptance of money by the appellants through the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation also cannot be construed to mean that the appellants have made a claim to that authority, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. We hence cannot agree with the finding of the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that the application is barred in view of the compensation already awarded through the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1