Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Kaluram Rathore vs Neelam Chand Kirar And Anr. on 22 March, 2004

R.Ganesan vs Arunachalam on 7 July, 2008

13. He also cites the decision, Kaluram Rathore v. Neelam Chand Kirar and another {2004 (2) TN MAC 16 (FB) (MP) }, wherein it is inter alia observed that 'mere fracture of bones and its re-union will not amount to permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, unless doctor examined claimant and assessed percentage of disability after performing scientific tests and without performing scientific tests, bald Statement of doctor and certificate are inadmissible in evidence and that the visual opinion of doctor has no evidentiary value and that the Claims Tribunal must assign reasons in arriving at conclusion in case of permanent/partial disablement and in the absence of evidence regarding scientific tests to determine percentage of disability, the Claims Tribunals should take guidance from Schedule of Workmen's Compensation Act.'.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

M/S.Patel K.N.R vs K.Angayarkani on 3 March, 2011

(i) Kaluram Rathore v. Neelam Chand Kiar & Another reported in 2004(2)TN MAC 16 DISABILITY - Permanent/partial disability - Mere fracture of bones and its re-union will not amount to permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, unless doctor examined claimant and assessed percentage of disability after performing scientific tests - without performing scientific tests, bald statement of doctor and certificate inadmissible in evidence - Visual opinion of doctor has no evidentiary value - Claims Tribunal must assign reasons in arriving at conclusion in case of permanent/partial disablement - In absence of evidence regarding scientific tests to determine percentage of disability, Claims Tribunals should take guidance from Schedule of Workmen's Compensation Act.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - C S Karnan - Full Document

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Muthaiyan on 3 March, 2017

12. Going through the oral and documentary evidence and taking note of the avocation of respondent No.1, driver, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai, held that such functional disability would affect the loss of earning capacity. Though in this appeal, contention has been made that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Workmen Compensation-I, ought to have referred the first respondent to the Medical Board for ascertaining the percentage of loss of earning capacity, as per Section 20(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, this court is not inclined to accept the said contention, in light of a Full Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kaluram Rathore v. Neelam Chand Kirar reported in 2004 (2) TNMAC 16 (FB) (MP), a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1