Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
In the conflicting opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009(6) SCC 121, Rajesh & others v. Rajbir Singh & others, 2013(9) SCC 54 and Reshma Kumari & others vs. Madan Mohan & another, 2013(9) SCC 65 as well as in the case Pushpa (Supra), Rule 220-A was not under consideration. Therefore, pendency of a reference does not stand to any benefit of the appellant.
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013
In the conflicting opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009(6) SCC 121, Rajesh & others v. Rajbir Singh & others, 2013(9) SCC 54 and Reshma Kumari & others vs. Madan Mohan & another, 2013(9) SCC 65 as well as in the case Pushpa (Supra), Rule 220-A was not under consideration. Therefore, pendency of a reference does not stand to any benefit of the appellant.
Smt.Rita Devi & Ors vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr on 27 April, 2000
4. Learned counsel for appellant had relied on Rita Devi (Smt.) and others versus New India Assurance Company Limited and another AIR 2000 SC 1930, 2000(5) JT 355 and contended that in that controversy where the deceased was employed to drive the auto-riksha for ferrying passengers on hire and the auto riksha was parked at rikshaw stand and some unknown passenger had engaged him for their journey and later on next day, the body of the deceased was recovered and auto-riksha was never traced. The Apex Court awarded the compensation on the ground that the accident took place during the use of motor vehicle.