Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.02 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Calcutta Licensed Measurers Bengal ... vs Md. Hossain on 29 November, 1968
9. According to Mr. Banik, the law is now well settled. Loss of income is one thing and loss of earning capacity is another and the two cannot be equated. It is possible that even after having sustained serious injury one may continue to earn at the same level or be retained by the employer whether on sympathy or otherwise. But that is not the real test. The principle is whether the victim is capable of undertaking all possible jobs as he or she was before accident. In other words, whether the saleability of the services ordinarily rendered by the victim had been diminished. This principle of law has been discussed in a fairly old decision of this court rendered in the case of Calcutta Licensed Measurers v. Md. Hussain 1969 ACJ 92 (Calcutta). In this case, on facts it was found that after the accident a workman was receiving a higher salary as a measure of concession or of grace. In substance there was no loss of earnings, but factually it was found that his partial and permanent disablement was caused by the accident and it was such that it was not possible for him to perform the same work that he performed before the accident. Of course, this case was decided under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 but the principle can very well be applied to the present case, where there is no statutory guidance for assessment of damages.
Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995
13. The Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , held that the victim was entitled not only for the loss of actual earning but also for the loss in earning capacity. The principle of law on this subject as enunciated in all these decisions is beyond dispute. This court has also accepted such principle and approach.
Mohanbhai Gemabhai vs Balubhai Savjibhai And Ors. on 28 September, 1992
In Mohanbhai Gemabhai v. Balubhai Savjibhai , the Division Bench had followed the same principle while assessing compensation. In para 10 it was held amongst others that:
Atanu Kumar Ghosal vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 3 May, 2006
In a recent decision rendered in case of Atanu Kumar Ghosal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , after summing up the earlier decisions, it has been held that there must be evidence that on account of partial and permanent disablement the victim lost earning capacity. In that case an insurance agent lost one of his fingers. Even after accident he could perform the same work and his services were also saleable in market. Therefore, factually he did not lose his earning capacity even though he must have been facing inconvenience and discomfort. But it was held that such inconvenience and discomfort could not be equated with the loss of earning capacity.
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Shivalinga Shivanagowda Patil And Ors. vs Erappa Basappa Bhavihala And Ors. on 1 December, 2003
Corporation v. Mahadeva Shetty and the Full Bench decision of Karnataka High Court Shivalinga Shivanagowda Patil v. Erappa Basappa Bhavihala and also a number of decisions of Division Benches of this court. As such, there is no merit in this appeal and it should be dismissed.
Agent, East Indian Railway vs Maurice Cecil Ryan on 6 May, 1937
The Bench in that case while discussing the two earlier decisions of this court Agent, East Indian Railways v. Maurice Cecil Ryan and Sukhai v. Hukam Chand Jute Mills Ltd. observed in their lucid manner as follows:
Sukhai vs Hukum Chand Jute Mills Ltd. on 22 January, 1957
The Bench in that case while discussing the two earlier decisions of this court Agent, East Indian Railways v. Maurice Cecil Ryan and Sukhai v. Hukam Chand Jute Mills Ltd. observed in their lucid manner as follows: