Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Zubeda Bano And Others vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp. ... on 25 September, 1989
Again, this decision is also considered in the decision in the case of Zubeda Bano v. Divisional Controller Maharasthra Stale Road Trans. Corporation .
Broach Municipality vs Raiben Chimanlal And Ors. on 29 January, 1986
29. The decision of this Court in the case of Broach Municipality v. Raiben Chimanlal 1987 ACJ 698 (Gujarat), is very important and relevant which is directly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case the deceased was a driver who was driving tractor. He was performing his duty as a tractor driver from 7 a.m. He worked up to 2 p.m. It was held that by no stretch of reasoning it can be said that his work does not involve stress and strain. He was required to drive the tractor with trailer and he had to move from place to place in the town for collecting the dirt and refuse. It was found that such type of work would certainly aggravate the disease.
Amubibi vs Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. on 10 August, 1976
In the result, this Court found, relying on the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amubibi v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. 1976 ACJ 507 (Gujarat), that there was proximate nexus between the death and the work of the driver.
United India General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shantaben Jerambhai And Ors. on 23 July, 1981
In order to substantiate his contention, he has also relied on a decision of this Court, rendered in the case of Union of India v. Shantaben 1985 ACJ 818 (Gujarat). In the said case this Court had found that the employer was liable for the payment of simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent. It was found that there was no justification for not granting simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The principle enunciated in the said decision is not in dispute. However, the question requires, to be considered as to whether interest, should be awarded in the present case or not in the light of the facts of the present case. No doubt, an award of interest unlike penalty would assume different dimensions in the present case in view of the long period consumed in getting compensation. The amount of compensation which the applicants arc found to be entitled to, undoubtedly, remained in arrears almost for a period of three years. The incident had occurred on 2.11.1979 and the amount, as per the award of the learned Commissioner, came to be deposited in November 1982 and it was withdrawn by the original applicants pursuant to the order of this Court passed on 4.11.1982 in the Civil Application No. 4211 of 1982, Therefore, the due amount of compensation remained with the opponent employer corporation which otherwise would have been utilised by the original applicants Therefore, considering the fact that the amount which is found payable under the Act to the original applicants remained in arrears and in the enjoyment of the opponent employer Corporation, it would be reasonable to award interest. The learned Commissioner has failed to consider this aspect. Therefore, the original applicants are entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per sent from the date of accident, i.e., 2.11.1979, till the payment to the original applicants. Therefore, the First Appeal No. 1718 of 1982 filed by the original applicants is required to be partly allowed to that extent with costs.
Chiman Surakhia Vasava vs Ahmed Musa Ustad And Ors. on 6 January, 1986
In fact, this Court has held in a decision rendered in the case of Chiman Surakhia Vasva v. Ahmed Musa Ustad 1987 ACJ 161 (Gujarat) : II (1986) ACC 9 (Gujarat), that strict principles of Evidence Act and the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act.
Section 30 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Laxmibai Atmaram vs Chairman And Trustees, Bombay Port ... on 15 July, 1953
27. Reliance is also placed on a decision rendered in the case of Laxmibai Atmaram v. Chairman and Trustees, Bombay Port Trust, MR. 1954 Bombay 180, by the .learned Counsel for the original opponent employer Corporation, Decision rendered in this case, in any way, does not support the version of the employer. In that case, the Commissioner had rejected the claim holding that it was a case of natural death. The High Court, in appeal, set aside the order of the Commissioner and held that the injury in question (heart injury) was contributory on account of the work in which the deceased was engaged. Thus, it was found that the heart injury was accelerated by stress and strain of the work. In short, it was found that there was a causal connection between the employment and work and, therefore, the employer was held liable for the payment of compensation under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the said decision is of no avail to the employer to defeat the claim of the original applicants.
Bhagwanji Murubhai Sodha And Ors. vs Hindustan Tiles And Cement Industries, ... on 10 December, 1974
28. On behalf of the original applicants, reliance is placed on a decision rendered in the case of Bhagwanji Murubhai Sodha v. Hindustan Tiles and Cement Industries, Jamnagar (1976) 17 Gujarat LR 835. It was held in that case that the motor driver, aged 62, driving a car in the course of employment suffering from heart attack could be said to have sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. The deceased was working as a driver, who had suffered pain in chest and died. It was held by this Court that such an injury has a causal connection with the work and, there fore; the employer was liable for the payment of compensation. It was also held that in such a situation, the accident must be held to have arisen out of employment and in the course of employment.