Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.28 seconds)The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Section 4 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Mohd. Khaj Rasool Sayyed @ Mohd. Khaja ... on 23 June, 2003
16. But, contrary to the said judgments, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in C.M.A. Nos.489, 904, 1145 and 1760 of 1999 and W.P. No.1249 of 2003, dated 23.6.2003 reported in United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad, v. Mohd. Khaja Rasool Sayyed @ Mohd. Khaja Main Shaik and Anr., , cited supra. In the said judgment, the learned Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao, considering the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, Code of Civil Procedure, and the Evidence Act dealt with a similar question. It was noticed that during the trial, similar interlocutory applications were filed seeking to allow the company's Doctor to be examined as witness and for enquiry in a claim filed for compensation under the provisions of the Compensation Act. But the said interlocutory applications were dismissed. Questioning the said order, W.P. No.1249 of 2003 was filed to quash the said interlocutory applications and to issue consequential directions. The said interlocutory applications were filed seeking to examine its Doctor and the same were dismissed mainly on the ground that there is no provision under the Workmen's Compensation Act for referring the matter to the Medical Board and therefore, the Doctor need not be examined and it was also held that the applications were filed with a view to dragging on the proceedings. Questioning the said orders, the said W.P. was filed. The learned Judge held that under the provisions of the Evidence Act, a distinction has been made between private and public document. The learned Judge held in Paragraph 29 as follows:
Section 4 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 2 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Charan Singh vs G. Vittal Reddy And Anr. on 7 March, 2003
21. The writ petitions are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 1249 of 2003 which view was in conformity with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Charan Singh v. G. Vittal Reddy and Anr., (DB) cited supra. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation are unsustainable and they are liable to be set aside.
Union Of India vs T. R. Varma on 18 September, 1957
6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants/ applicants filed a counter and contended that as per the Workmen's Compensation Act, if the victim is examined by any Registered Medical Practitioner and produces the evidence before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, it is sufficient to prove the disability and the loss of earning capacity. There is no mandatory provision in the Act that the victim must be referred to the Medical Board. The writ petitions are not maintainable and similar matters were already dismissed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 3618 of 2002 dated 7.3.2003, W.P. No. 18103 of 2002, dated 9.9.2002, C.R.P.No.983 of 2003, dated 22.4.2004, C.R.P.No.5464 of 2002, dated 16.4.2004 and C.R.P.No.4395 of 2002, dated 18.12.2003. It is further stated that the proceedings before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation are summary in nature as held in Union of India v. Mrs. T.R. Varma, , Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Ors., , which is contemplated in the Act and Rules, hence the strict proof of the Evidence Act and C.P.C. are not applicable as held in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Mrs. K. Padma Rani and Anr., 1975 (1) APLJ 258, G. Saramma and Ors. v. Md. Jabbar Sharif and Anr., , and it is not a Civil Court to prove the contents as per the Evidence Act as held by the Apex Court in Associated Cement Co., Ltd. v P.N. Sharma and Anr., , and hence, the Ruling in United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad v. Mohd. Khaja Rasool Sayyed @ Mohd. Khaja Main Shaik and Anr., , has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case.