Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs D.Sivasankar on 31 January, 2014 cites

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs V. Prabhu Das And Anr. on 23 August, 2004

(e). As the first respondent has suffered an injury during the course of employment, he has rightly approached the Commissioner. The concept of Insurance is to indemnify the insured or the beneficiaries of the policy against the claims. Technicalities cannot be invoked to defeat the claim of the Workmen. As rightly held by the Commissioner, the judgment in 2005 ACJ 409 [NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., vs. V.PRABHU DAS AND ANOTHER] relied upon by the appellant is not applicable to the present case as the claim therein was above the amount covered under the Policy. The award is below the maximum cap.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Ramji Porte And Ors. vs Premabai Patel And Ors. on 9 January, 1998

10. The learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the name of the first respondent is very much available in the list of employees covered by the Policy and that as per the terms of the Policy, the cover of the workmen is Rs.1,00,000/- and since the award is less than the maximum, the appellant is liable to satisfy the claim. The learned counsel also placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in C.M.A.(MD) No.265 of 2004, contended that even third parties can seek compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act and even in cases not covered under the Workmen Compensation Act, the Commissioner can very well direct the Insurance Company to pay the award. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in 2000 ACJ 1359 [RAMJI PORTE AND OTHERS vs. PREMABAI PATEL AND OTHERS] and contended that insurers liability is not limited to provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act and hence sought the dismissal of the appeal.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 6 - R Gupta - Full Document

N.Ganesan vs Tmt.Thilagavathi on 28 April, 2010

13. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC 80 [N.GANESAN vs. THILAGAVATHI] following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1976 (1) SCC 289 [PRATAP NARAIN SINGH DEO vs. SHRINIVAS SABATA] and 2000 ACJ 5 [KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs. VALSALA, K.], held that the word falls due occurring under section 4-A of the Workmens Compensation Act means that interest for compensation amount would accrue 30 days after the date of accident and not from the date of quantification/orders passed by the commissioner for Workmens Compensation. Therefore, the direction of Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I to pay interest only if the amount is not deposited within 30 days from the date of order is unsustainable. The first respondent is entitled to interest from the 31st day of the accident i.e from 26.01.2006.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 62 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs Srinivas Sabata And Anr on 4 December, 1975

13. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC 80 [N.GANESAN vs. THILAGAVATHI] following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1976 (1) SCC 289 [PRATAP NARAIN SINGH DEO vs. SHRINIVAS SABATA] and 2000 ACJ 5 [KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs. VALSALA, K.], held that the word falls due occurring under section 4-A of the Workmens Compensation Act means that interest for compensation amount would accrue 30 days after the date of accident and not from the date of quantification/orders passed by the commissioner for Workmens Compensation. Therefore, the direction of Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I to pay interest only if the amount is not deposited within 30 days from the date of order is unsustainable. The first respondent is entitled to interest from the 31st day of the accident i.e from 26.01.2006.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 944 - P N Shinghal - Full Document

Kerala State Electricity Board And ... vs Valsala K And Another on 16 September, 1999

13. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC 80 [N.GANESAN vs. THILAGAVATHI] following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1976 (1) SCC 289 [PRATAP NARAIN SINGH DEO vs. SHRINIVAS SABATA] and 2000 ACJ 5 [KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs. VALSALA, K.], held that the word falls due occurring under section 4-A of the Workmens Compensation Act means that interest for compensation amount would accrue 30 days after the date of accident and not from the date of quantification/orders passed by the commissioner for Workmens Compensation. Therefore, the direction of Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I to pay interest only if the amount is not deposited within 30 days from the date of order is unsustainable. The first respondent is entitled to interest from the 31st day of the accident i.e from 26.01.2006.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 302 - Full Document
1