Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.37 seconds)
The General Manager vs P.J.Saramma (Died) on 29 February, 2012 cites

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ã ... vs Mubasir Ahmed & Anr. Ã .Respondents on 1 February, 2007

14. Then the next question is whether the Commissioner was M.F.A. (W.C. Act) No.186 of 2012 8 justified in awarding the interest from the date of accident. It is true that in the decisions reported in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Mubasir Ahmed (2007 (3) KLT 26 (SC)], the Supreme Court has held that since the legislature has not used expression from the date of accident, the date of payment will be from the date on which it falls due and unless there is adjudication, the question of falling the amount due does not arise and the liability to pay interest will start only from the date of adjudication of the claim by the authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 293 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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

V and Another), considered all the decisions of this aspect, namely National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Mubasir Ahmed and Another (2007) 2 SCC 349 = 2007(3) KLT 26 (SC), Kamala Chathurvedi v. National Insurance Company [2008 (4) KLT 862 (SC)] and Palraj v. The Divisional Controller NEKRTC JT (2010 (10) SC 94] and relying on the decisions reported in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata [(1976) 1 SCC 289], which is a judgment rendered by four judges of the Apex Court where the scope of Section 4(A) of the Workmen's Compensation Act has been considered and held that the amount is payable as soon as the personal injury was caused to the injured/workman and upheld the order of the commissioner directed him to pay interest from the date M.F.A. (W.C. Act) No.186 of 2012 9 of accident.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 944 - P N Shinghal - Full Document

M/S.The National Insurance Company Ltd vs Padmavathy on 6 January, 2012

13. The fact that the first opposite party is a contractor employed by the second opposite party for the purpose of digging trench in connection with their trade for laying cable and deceased Shaji was employed by the first opposite party for that purpose and he was an employee under the first opposite party are not in dispute. It is also an admitted fact that deceased Shaji died on 4.12.2005 at 3 p.m., while he was taking bath from the Manimala river situated near the place of employment along with his co-workers and while so he drowned in the river and died. The evidence of AWs 2 and 3 will go to show that after the work was over, they went for taking bath, at that time the unfortunate incident occurred. Then the question is whether M.F.A. (W.C. Act) No.186 of 2012 7 the death will be deemed to have occurred in the course or arising out of employment and according to the opposite parties since the incident did not occur at the time when he was engaged in doing work, it cannot be said that, there was any nexus between the death and the employment and as such that will not come under the purview of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. This question has been considered by this court in the decision reported in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Padmavathy (2012(2) KLT 854) where it has been held that in a case where the driver had drowned when he had gone for a dip in the river after washing the vehicle, such situation cannot be excluded from the continuity chain of events in connection of the employment. So the doctrine of notional expenses of the employment will come under such circumstances and it cannot be said that there was no nexus between the employment and the death as contended by the opposite parties in the authority below. So the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the application is maintainable and the death occurred arising out of and in the course of employment applying the doctrine of notional extension of employment and awarded compensation under that Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kerala State Electricity Board vs Sundaram Estate on 20 November, 1986

In the decision reported in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Sudaram Estate [(1987) II LLJ 311 Ker.], it has been held that if a person being total stranger is responsible for the accident by which the injury was caused to a workman, the principal employer as indemnified is bound to pay compensation to the worker and recover M.F.A. (W.C. Act) No.186 of 2012 16 the same from the person who caused the injury by recourse to the Act. In the decision it has been held, the liability of the principal to pay compensation to the contractors/workman arises where he had in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business engaged a contractor for execution of his work which is ordinary part of his trade or business and a workmen employed by the contractor for the execution of such work was injured by an accident which occurred in the principal's premises, an absolute liability is cast on the principal in such circumstances as if the workman was his immediate employee. Sub section (2) of section 12 however entitles the principal to be indemnified by the contractor. These two sub sections thus simultaneously impose a liability and confer a corresponding right upon the principal, such right and liability have to be worked out by recourse to the machinery provided under sub section (2) and not by any proceeding outside the Act. This means that in the absence of an agreement between the parties, the commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction to settle such questions. The scope of sub section (2) was considerably widened by Section 9 of Act 15 of 1933. As a result of this amendment, the principal is entitled to be indemnified not only by the contractor as was the pre-amendment position, but also by any other person from whom the workmen would have recovered M.F.A. (W.C. Act) No.186 of 2012 17 compensation. The Division Bench was considering the scope of Section 12 and 13 of the Act and held that, even if a third party was involved who is liable to indemnify the principal employer by virtue of Section 13 of the Act, that also can be considered while considering the right of indemnity to be given to the principal employer under Section 12(2) of the Act in the same proceedings and it cannot be delegated to another proceedings.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next