Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.24 seconds)Section 3 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Minerals And Chemicals vs Thevan on 26 September, 1991
15. The plaintiff had no doubt made a claim for payment of compensation but nothing concrete was offered by the appellant in satisfaction of the said claim. There was in that view no agreement which could possibly keep any claim for damages outside the jurisdiction of a civil court. Any other interpretation would in our view render the provisions of
Sub-section 5 of Section 3 otiose. The decision in Thevan's case (supra) and that in Port Trust, Madras v. Bombay Co. (P) Ltd. do not in our view state the law differently and was rightly relied upon by the court below.
Section 5 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors vs Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & ... on 25 March, 1977
16. It was next argued by Mr. Vasdev that if a suit was indeed maintainable before a civil court, the plaintiffs had to prove the negligence of the employer which proof was, in the instant case, absent according to the learned Counsel. On behalf of the respondents, it was per contra argued that the accident had taken place in Libya and all facts relating to the manner in which the same had occurred were within the exclusive knowledge of the defendant appellant. It was further submitted that although the appellant is alleged to have conducted an inquiry and prepared a report regarding the cause of the accident, no such report was ever produced. Not even the report of the investigating agency was placed on record which too was within the knowledge of the defendant appellant. Reliance was also placed upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti
and Ors. and Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi and Ors. v. Ranjit Ginning
and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. .
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
17. There is considerable merit in the submission made on behalf of the plaintiff respondents. The hapless widow and minor children of a workman who goes to a foreign land in search of livelihood can hardly have access to facts that are necessary to prove negligence resulting in the accident. It is true that the initial onus to prove negligence will be upon the claimant but it is equally true that in cases where the defendant has in his possession the best evidence that would throw light on a particular aspect in controversy, it is bound to produce the same before the court to enable it to take a just and fair view of the matter. Non-production of the best evidence in possession of a party would give rise to an adverse inference against him. Reference may in this connection be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar
v. Mohamed Haji Latif and Ors. , where the Apex Court declared that if a party, in possession of evidence which could throw light on a controversy, withholds the same, the Court must draw an adverse inference against him even if the onus of proof did not lie on him. The Court observed:
Bansibhar Ganga Pershad Agency vs Chanan Lal And Anr. on 31 October, 1974
19. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Messrs Bansidhar Ganga Pershad Agency
v. Chanan Lal and Anr. and Hari Kumar v. Sat Narain Mehra .
Hari Kumar vs Sat Narain Mehra on 11 December, 1995
19. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Messrs Bansidhar Ganga Pershad Agency
v. Chanan Lal and Anr. and Hari Kumar v. Sat Narain Mehra .
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
22. It was lastly submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the amount of compensation determined was on the higher side. We do not think so. The method adopted by the trial court for determining the amount payable to the plaintiffs is legally unexceptionable having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum
v. Susamma Thomas and Ors. and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and Anr. . The said decisions authoritatively lay down that the multiplier method is the most accurate of all methods for determining the compensation payable for death or injury regardless whether the claim for such compensation is made under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Fatal Accidents Act. The trial court has keeping in view the age of the deceased correctly chosen the multiplier of 16 and applied a multiplicand of Rs. 1560 x 12 per annum to the same.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Charlie And Anr on 29 March, 2005
22. It was lastly submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the amount of compensation determined was on the higher side. We do not think so. The method adopted by the trial court for determining the amount payable to the plaintiffs is legally unexceptionable having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum
v. Susamma Thomas and Ors. and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and Anr. . The said decisions authoritatively lay down that the multiplier method is the most accurate of all methods for determining the compensation payable for death or injury regardless whether the claim for such compensation is made under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Fatal Accidents Act. The trial court has keeping in view the age of the deceased correctly chosen the multiplier of 16 and applied a multiplicand of Rs. 1560 x 12 per annum to the same.