Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)Section 30 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Section 4A in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs Srinivas Sabata And Anr on 4 December, 1975
In the backdrop of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo's case and several other decisions, it has to be held that when a particular limb or member has become unfit for use to the nature of job or employment or work in which he was engaged at the time of the accident, then he would be totally incapacitated to do the work. It is not the case of the employer or any of the Respondents that the claimant was given alternative employment and therefore, there was no total loss of earning capacity.
Section 30 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
The New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Biju on 18 August, 2011
19. In the present case, the award has been passed on 30.5.2003. Admittedly, the principal amount of Rs.2,99,491/- has been deposited by way of cheque dated 13.8.2003 bearing No.094174 drawn on State Bank of Travancore with a covering note dated 18.8.2003 which is acknowledged by the Labour Deputy Commissioner on 20.8.2003. Even according to the Insurance Company, they have received the order on 18.7.2003 and they ought to have deposited within a period of 30 days i.e. on 18.8.2003. It is not in dispute that only principal amount of Rs.2,99,491/- alone has been deposited by way of cheque and the said cover containing the cheque had been received only on 20.8.2003 as could be noticed from the endorsement found on the cover. That apart, the appeal is not accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the Appellant/ Insurance Company has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. Therefore, the Appellant has failed to deposit the interest that has been ordered by the Commissioner. I am in entire agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in 2011-2-TNMAC-48 (New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. Biju) and 2008-ACJ-235 (V.K.Raghavan Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation) that the words 'amount payable under the order appealed against' in the third proviso will include not only the principal amount of compensation, but also interest as well.
S. Suresh vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 14 September, 2009
In another recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of S.Suresh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another (2010-ACJ-487) where the driver of truck suffered amputation of right leg just below knee and the Doctor stated that the workman suffered 93 per cent permanent disability in his right leg and he will not be able to do the job of driver or any other job, because he will not be able to stand or walk without support, the Commissioner found that workman suffered a loss of 100 per cent of his earning capacity, but the High Court held that injury being specified in Schedule I, medical opinion could not be relied and applying the percentage of loss of earning capacity, reduced compensation by 50 per cent. The Honourable Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court and held that the claimant was rendered unfit for work of a driver which he was performing at the time of the accident and therefore, lost 100 per cent of his earning capacity, more so, when he is disqualified from even getting a driving license under the Motor Vehicles Act and restored the award passed by the Commissioner.
Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010
In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in 2011-ACJ-1 (Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another).