Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shyam Kumar And Ors. on 15 July, 2005

Sh. Ramesh Kumar S/O Sh. Dharam Singh vs ) Sh. Ajab Singh S/O S/O Sh. Dalel Singh on 6 March, 2012

In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. -16- Shyam Kumar & others, 2006 ACJ 2092 wherein it is held that principles of assessment--Contention that injured received salary for leave period from his employer - Whether the injured is entitled to compensation for leave post--Held: yes: he could have utilized such leave for some other purpose.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hanif Khan vs Gaurav Kushwah on 31 October, 2023

7. So far as amount under the head of loss of leave is concerned , as per certificate Ex.P/34, on account of injuries sustained in the accident appellant was on sick leave. From Ex.P/34 and other evidence on record it is not established that on account of injuries sustained in the accident appellant was forced to take earned leave. Apparently, sick leave cannot be utilized for any other purpose whatsoever, therefore, appellant cannot be awarded any amount under the head of loss of leave. Hence, in view of above, principle laid down in Shyam Kumar (supra) does not help appellant in any way.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A K Paliwal - Full Document

( vs Sh. Jasbir Singh S/O Late Sh. Narender ... on 28 February, 2012

In view of ratio of case law namely "Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs Ganeshwar Sharma and another, 2001 ACJ 931 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Shyam Kumar and others, 2006 ACJ 2092", I am of the view that petitioner should be granted compensation on account of loss of 297 days leaves which may be MACT No. 919­07 9 of 12 taken loss of salary for about 10 months. As per document Ex. PW1/29, petitioner was getting Rs. 19,541/­ in the month of November, 2008. Therefore, Rs. 1,95,410/­ (19,541/­ *10) is granted for loss of leaves of 297 days.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Sharma vs Sh. Puneet Singh on 5 April, 2008

As regard the actual amount of compensation, the petitioner continued to receive treatment at AIIMS for about a month and as per certificate dated 7.4.05, was declared fit to resume his duties after having recovered from his illness. Submissions made on behalf of petitioner were that though he has been paid for the leave period by his employer but he is entitled to be compensated for the period of leave as he was working as a draftsman with Delhi Jal Board and was drawing salary of Rs.12,417/- per month and remained on medical leave from 5.3.05 to 7.4.05 and on earned leave from 11.4.05 to 21.4.05. Petitioner was declared fit to resume his duties 5 on 8.4.05, as per certificate, Ex. PW3/6 and the earned leave availed of by the petitioner from 11.4.05 to 21.4.05 are in no way related to the injuries received by the petitioner. On behalf of petitioner reliance was placed on the case decided by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported as United India Insurance company Ltd. vs. Shyam Kumar and others, 2006 ACJ 2092 wherein it was held that injured is entitled to compensation for leave lost on the ground that he could not utilise the lost leave for some other purpose and further reliance was placed on another case decided by Hon'ble High Court of Madras reported as Revathi Rajasekaran and another vs. Vijayakumaran and another, 2002 ACJ 1925 wherein it was held that injured who has been paid leave salary by his employer is entitled for loss of leave for the leave period on the ground that leave accumulated is encashable. In the present case, petitioner has availed medical leave from 5.3.05 to 7.4.05 which is neither encashable nor would have been utilised for any other purpose by the petitioner except illness. The case law being relied upon on behalf of petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case and I accordingly hold that petitioner is not entitled to be compensated for the medical leave availed of by him from 5.3.05 to 7.4.05.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Krishan Pal S/O Sh. Tara Chand vs Sh. Kapoor Singh S/O Sh. Shanker Ram on 6 March, 2012

In view of ratio of case law namely "Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs Ganeshwar Sharma and another, 2001 ACJ 931 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Shyam Kumar and others, 2006 ACJ 2092", I am of the view that petitioner should be granted compensation on account of loss of 3 months leaves. Petitioner was working as Head Constable at the time of accident and he was getting Rs. 14,773/­ per month as per salary MACT No. 155­07 7 of 9 certificate Ex. PW1/15. Therefore, Rs. 44,319/­ (14,773/­ *3) is granted for loss of leaves of 3 months.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Vijay S/O Late Sh. Adghr John vs Sh. Sourabh Tyagi S/O Sh. Ishwar on 19 April, 2012

6. Injured has availed total leaves of 179 days for his treatment. As per case laws namely "Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs Ganeshwar Sharma and another, 2001 ACJ 931 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Shyam Kumar and others, 2006 ACJ 2092" injured is entitled to 357/11 3 Of 6 receive salary for leave period. Therefore, injured should be granted in respect of loss of leaves of 179 days which is about 6 months. The amount of Rs. 17,000/­ is taken as loss in case injured would have availed so much leaves in future without pay. Counsel for insurance co. has also agreed to it. Therefore, I am of the view that Rs.1,02,000/­ (17,000*6) is granted on account of availing leaves.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Sushma Bhalla vs Sh. Tarun Gupta on 10 August, 2011

10. Counsel for injured has relied upon case laws namely "Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs Ganeshwar Sharma and another, 2001 ACJ 931 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Shyam Kumar and others, 2006 ACJ 2092" in support of his submissions that injured is entitled to receive salary for leave period. He further submits that insurance company has offered only Rs. 30,832/­, i.e. half pay of 109 days while it should have been offered full salary for 109 days. On the other hand, counsel for insurance company has not given any reason as to why insurance company has not offered full pay for 109 days.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Sukhveer Singh @ Sukhbir Singh vs Sh. Hoshiar Singh on 14 October, 2011

13. Counsel for petitioner had argued that the petitioner was on medical leave for 17 months due to the accident. These 17 months of leave had to be taken by the petitioner in voluntarily and counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner would be entitled to salary for this period at the rate of Rs.13,605/-. It is submitted that if the petitioner had MACT NO. 15/09 Page 5/11 not taken leave for this period, petitioner would be entitled to encashment of leave at the end of his service career as per service rules. Counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of united India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shyam Kumar and others reported in 2006 ACJ 2092.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mact No. 14/09; Shiv Kumar Tomar vs . Parmod & Ors. on 10 September, 2010

skin grafting was also done and the said disability is permanent in nature, irrespective of aforesaid expenses incurred by the petitioner, he has also become entitled for compensation on account of mental pain and agony, future and past prospective earning loss, transportation, medical attendant and better diet in support of his contention he also placed his reliance in a decided case cited as "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shyam Kumar and Others, 2006 ACJ 2092" and "N. Obalaranga Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 2010 ACJ 760" wherein it is observed as under:
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next