Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 218 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Veluchamy And Anr. on 29 December, 2004

G. Lakshmanan vs K. Kannan on 2 November, 2006

In the decision reported in 2005(1) CTC 38 (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VS. VELUCHAMY), the Division Bench has also held in paragraph-20 that it is the settled legal position that if there are materials, it would be open to the Tribunal/Court to grant higher compensation than that of the amount claimed. Therefore, even though the appellant in his claim petition, claimed only a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards permanent disability and another sum of Rs.42,000/- for loss of earning power, applying the principle set out in the Full Bench decision reported in 2006(4) CTC 433, paragraph-19, the claim on both heads can be clubbed as one to be assessed for the loss of earning capacity by applying the multiplier method.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document

K.K. Janardhanam vs Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation ... on 7 March, 2006

34. This Court, in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Veluchamy and Anr. has held that future promotions, increments, revisions of pay are in the domain of many imponderables and the Court should bear them in mind while assessing future loss of income. While estimating future loss of income, the Court can take into account the future prospects of the injured or the deceased of earning more income by way of promotions or otherwise.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Valli on 14 August, 2020

5. The learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal ought not to have ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 9 of 11 C.M.A.No.3095 of 2011 awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards injury. It is further submitted that the impugned Judgment and Decree is contrary to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Veluchamy and another, 2005 (1) TNMAC 87. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded towards mental agony also cannot be sustained as the first respondent/claimant has not produced any evidence to substantiate that she suffered abortion due to the accident.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A. Jayaram on 16 December, 2008

9. The claimant in this case has suffered serious injuries to his left hand and he was an electrician by profession. The nature of employment needs the use of both hands as he is dealing with the articles for which electric power is used. Therefore, the claimant cannot work and earn as before as his index finger was amputated and there was a fracture and non union of middle finger. There is also curvature of other fingers. Therefore, the utility of the left hand will be very much affected. The principles enunciated in Veluchamy's case will be applicable for determination of compensation in this case.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Sudhakar - Full Document

United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Lenin on 24 October, 2008

8. In this case, there is no finding by the Tribunal that by the nature of injury suffered by the injured claimant, his earning capacity and employment is totally affected. There is no finding that the disablement in this case assessed by the doctor is such that his earning capacity is lost for the rest of his life. There is no material to show that the injured claimant will be idle for the rest of his life and consequently, there will be total loss of income. Therefore, the question of applying multiplier method in this case does not arise as the parameters of paragraph 11 of the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 are not attracted to the facts of the present case. The multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal, therefore, clearly is an error. Accordingly, the compensation granted based on multiplier method cannot be justified.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R Sudhakar - Full Document

Mrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 2010

I am not in agreement with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Veluchamy and Another reported in 2005(1) TN MAC 87(DB) held that multiplier method should not be applied in permanent partial disability cases. On the other hand, the said judgment applied the multiplier method in the case of permanent total disablement. No where the Division Bench stated that the multiplier method should not be applied in partial permanent disability cases.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - D Hariparanthaman - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kannan on 17 November, 2008

10. The nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and the treatment given resulting in amputation clearly goes to show that after the treatment claimant has recovered from injuries. The earning capacity, however, will be affected as the claimant has to rely on physical stray and his hands and fingers for making bricks. However, it will not preclude the claimant from earning through other sources on a lesser scale. Therefore, the multiplier as in the case of death need not be adopted in the case of injury of this kind. Following the decision in Veluchamy's case cited above, the multiplier has to be reduced and the percentage of disability in the present case has to be suitably modified. Accordingly, the loss of earning capacity due to disability is determined in a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- (Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 30/100 x 10 -= Rs.1,44,000/-). As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent/ claimant, no amount was granted for pain and suffering, transport expenses, extra nourishment and attender charges. The sum of Rs.48,000/- granted for loss of income during the period treatment is excessive as the Tribunal has granted compensation for nearly one year and there is no medical evidence to support the same. The award therefore stands modified as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Sudhakar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next