Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.42 seconds)Smt Mallawwa Etc vs Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd. And Ors on 27 November, 1998
7. Therefore, it cannot be said that by entering into a contract of carrying the goods belonging to the deceased, they were travelling by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment. In the present case it cannot be said that the deceased were having contract of employment with themselves as they were carrying their own goods. The learned Judges of Orissa High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kanchan Bewa 1994 ACJ 138 (Orissa), which judgment has been approved by the Apex Court in Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1999 ACJ 1 (SC), have also referred to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurdev Kaur's case 1967 ACJ 158 (P&H), and have concluded in para 25 that, "what applies to the owners of the goods mentioned above in paras 22 and 23 (as quoted hereinabove) would apply to the employees of the owners of the goods".
New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Kanchan Bewa And Ors. on 11 October, 1993
7. Therefore, it cannot be said that by entering into a contract of carrying the goods belonging to the deceased, they were travelling by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment. In the present case it cannot be said that the deceased were having contract of employment with themselves as they were carrying their own goods. The learned Judges of Orissa High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kanchan Bewa 1994 ACJ 138 (Orissa), which judgment has been approved by the Apex Court in Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1999 ACJ 1 (SC), have also referred to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurdev Kaur's case 1967 ACJ 158 (P&H), and have concluded in para 25 that, "what applies to the owners of the goods mentioned above in paras 22 and 23 (as quoted hereinabove) would apply to the employees of the owners of the goods".
Oriental Fire And General Insurance Co. ... vs Smt. Gurdev Kaur And Ors. on 12 May, 1966
7. Therefore, it cannot be said that by entering into a contract of carrying the goods belonging to the deceased, they were travelling by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment. In the present case it cannot be said that the deceased were having contract of employment with themselves as they were carrying their own goods. The learned Judges of Orissa High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kanchan Bewa 1994 ACJ 138 (Orissa), which judgment has been approved by the Apex Court in Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1999 ACJ 1 (SC), have also referred to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurdev Kaur's case 1967 ACJ 158 (P&H), and have concluded in para 25 that, "what applies to the owners of the goods mentioned above in paras 22 and 23 (as quoted hereinabove) would apply to the employees of the owners of the goods".
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Usha Rani And Ors. on 1 August, 1989
10. We find that the appellant insurance company has deposited the award amount in the Registry of this court, out of which some amount stands disbursed in favour of the respondents-claimants. When orders for release of the award amount were passed the law laid down by this court in the judgment New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha Rani 1990 ACJ 785 (HP) and other judgments was in favour of respondents-claimants, as such, they must have utilised the same taking it as their right, therefore, it will not be in the interest of equity and good conscience to direct them to refund that amount to the appellant insurance company. But so far the balance award amount lying in fixed deposit is concerned, it is ordered to be refunded to the appellant insurance company along with up-to-date interest. The appellant insurance company may recover the amount already disbursed in favour of the respondents-claimants from the owner as well as driver of the truck in accordance with law.
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
1