Madan Gopal vs Anandi Lal on 11 October, 1991
The same view has been taken by this Court in Smt. Gawari Bai v. Pratap Singh (supra) and United India Insurance Company v. Roop Kanwar (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 42 (0.57 seconds)The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Yadav And Ors. on 2 April, 2025
20. Thus, where there is default on the part of the insurer, in not making
timely payment of interim compensation to the workman/employee, the
liability to pay compensation under section 4-A(3)(b) of the EC Act cannot
be fastened upon the shoulders of the insurance company. At the same time,
FAO 289/2022 Page 13 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:03.04.2025
17:39:27
the Supreme Court in the cited case of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi
(supra), cited with approval a decision by the Rajasthan High Court titled as
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Roop Kanwar And Ors.2,
wherein it was held that if an additional premium has been paid by the
employer/insurer to cover compensation under the Workmen's
Compensation Act, the liability to pay the penalty under Section 4(A)(3)(b)
of the Act shall also be borne by the insurer.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Sire Kanwar And Ors. on 22 May, 2006
8. Above referred judgments (1) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vilas Devi and Ors. ; (2) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Momina Begum and Ors. ; (3)National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Nema and Ors. 2003 RAR 148 (Raj.), (4)D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 48 of 2002 (Civil) decided on 22.5.2003 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deva Ram and Ors. and (5) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kaki Bai and Ors. 2005 RAR 494 (Raj.) were not before the Division Bench when Roop Kanwar's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Roop Kanwar and Ors. 2006(2) RDD 726 (Raj.) (DB)], was decided.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Pappu Kumar @ Pushap Kumar & Ors. on 28 February, 2014
In the case of United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Roop Kanwar and Ors. (supra) a
learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court had to
consider a situation where on payment of additional
premium the insurance company had agreed in the light of
endorsement No. 16 of the Policy to cover all liabilities
incurred by the insured under Workmen's Compensation
FAO 125/2013 Page 4 of 9
Act. In view of this contractual coverage of liability the
insurance company in that case was held liable to meet the
claim for penalty and interest as imposed upon the insured
under Section 4-A(3) of the Compensation Act.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Saroj Singh And Ors. on 14 February, 2014
In the case of
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Roop Kanwar and Ors. (supra) a
learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court had to consider a
situation where on payment of additional premium the insurance
company had agreed in the light of endorsement No. 16 of the Policy
to cover all liabilities incurred by the insured under Workmen's
Compensation Act. In view of this contractual coverage of liability the
insurance company in that case was held liable to meet the claim for
penalty and interest as imposed upon the insured under Section 4-
Ved Prakash Garg vs Premi Devi & Ors on 25 September, 1997
In the case of United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Roop Kanwar & ors. (supra) a learned Single Judge of
the Rajasthan High Court had to consider a situation where
on payment of additional premium the insurance company had
agreed in the light of endorsement no.16 of the Policy to
cover all liabilities incurred by the insured under
Workmen's Compensation Act. In view of this contractual
coverage of liability the insurance company in that case was
held liable to meet the claim of penalty and interest as
imposed upon the insured under Section 4A(3) of the
Compensation Act.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vilas Devi And Ors. on 7 March, 2001
In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Roop Kanwar 1991 ACJ 74 (Rajasthan), a learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court had to consider a situation where on payment of additional premium the insurance company had agreed in the light of endorsement No. 16 of the policy to cover all liabilities incurred by the insured under Compensation Act. In view of this contractual coverage of liability the insurance company in that case was held liable to meet the claim for penalty and interest as imposed upon the insured under Section 4-A(3) of the Compensation Act.
Div. Manager, New India Assu. Co. Ltd. vs Biswanath Burman And Ors. on 3 October, 1996
Reference has also been made to the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Roop Kanwar , which, in our view, needs no consideration, as this decision is not directly on the point.
Divisional Manager, New India ... vs Biswanath Barman And Anr. on 3 October, 1996
Reference has been made to the decision in Untied India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Roop Kanwar 1991 ACJ 74 (Raj), which in our view, needs no consideration, as this decision is not directly on the point.
Tapender Singh vs Jai Singh And Ors. on 23 July, 2004
42. Where no objection was taken in the written statement, it was held in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Roop Kanwar, 1991 ACJ 74 (Rajasthan), as under: