Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Shankarlal vs General Manager, Central Railway And ... on 14 March, 1990

Mishrilal vs Nirmal Kumar And Anr. on 17 February, 2004

Shankarlal v. General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay V.T., 1990 ACJ 1028 (MP), had been a case of Shunting Master who sustained fractures of tibia and fibula of right leg, fracture remained malunited resulting into shortening of leg by 4 inches, medical board had assessed the loss of earning capacity at 70 per cent. The workman was unfit to do his original job as Shunting Master, his capacity to work was held just in relation to the work for which he was engaged at the time of accident and not that such workman could work on another job with lighter duties. There had been absolutely no evidence that the employer had continued the appellant in his employment and assigned some lighter work on the same pay. Thus, certainly the Commissioner had erred in not taking the disability of the appellant as total permanent disablement.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. And Anr. vs Balkishan And Anr. on 6 December, 1996

In such a situation, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation should not have held that there was loss of capacity for working merely because the doctors had opined so. This court took the similar view in a case in Shankarlal v. General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay V.T. 1990 ACJ 1028 (MP). S.K. Dubey, J. of this Court held in this case as follows:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ranjit Singh vs Gurbaksh Singh And Ors. on 19 April, 2001

3. Mr, S.S. Chawla, learned Counsel for the claimant submits that the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate. Due to the serious injuries, not scheduled, the claimant is not in a position to work, therefore, his earning capacity has been reduced by 100 per cent. To sustain this view, the learned Counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decisions reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balmat Singh 1997 ACJ 368 (MP); Gurucharansing Hardayalsing Sethi v. Narhari Laxman Shinde 1997 ACJ 372 (Bombay); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kashim 1996 ACJ 928 (Karnataka); Shankarlal v. General Manager, Central Railway 1990 ACJ 1028 (MP) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Saleem Khan 1993 ACJ 181 (AP). Precisely, the submission of the learned Counsel is that since the workman has been completely disabled from earning anything, therefore, the disablement is 100 per cent. Consequently, the compensation has to be assessed accordingly. This submission is opposed by Mr. A. Goel, learned Counsel for United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Indore. It is submitted that the claimant is not completely disabled from earning anything. Assuming, looking to the nature of the injuries, he cannot work as a cleaner but he can get any other assignment. Mr. Goel submits that certificate of the medical expert as to the extent of the percentage of the disablement, is of fundamental importance, we can find out the extent of disability and assess the earning capacity of the claimant.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A M Sapre - Full Document
1