Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)
National Ins. Co Ltd, R.P. Road, ... vs S. Padma 3 Others on 14 October, 2022 cites

T.S. Shylaja vs Oriental Insurance Co. & Anr on 3 January, 2014

In the other judgment between T.S.Shylaja vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another4 the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that "when the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act appraised the evidence adduced before him and recorded a finding of fact that the deceased was indeed employed as driver by the owner of the vehicle, no matter the owner happed to be his brother. The finding could not be likely interfered with or reverse by the High Court. In this case, the learned Commissioner gave a finding based on the evidence that there is no bar for the 4th respondent herein to employ his son and came to conclusion that the deceased died while 4 2014 2 SCC 587 11 SSRN, J CMA.No.537 of 2006 working as labourer on the tractor owned by 4th respondent which is insured with the appellant herein. In view of the above binding presidents, it can be held that there is no bar for a father to employ his son as collie/employee on his tractor. The evidence including the documents proves the said relation between the owner of the tractor and deceased. There is evidence to believe that the employee died during the course of such employment. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the said finding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 30 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Smt Sujatha W/O H D Parashurama on 27 August, 2010

14. In the other two judgments also, it was held that when there is no evidence to prove that the deceased was employed under his own father, no compensation can be awarded. Whereas in the judgment relied on by the respondent i.e., North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha2 held that whether there existed 1 (2007) 13 scc 446 2 2019 11 SCC 514 9 SSRN, J CMA.No.537 of 2006 any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of employee, how many are the dependants of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc., are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recovered thereon are regarded as the finding of fact".
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 264 - B S Gowda - Full Document

United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Kandadi Manemma on 4 July, 2018

In another judgment between United Insurance Company Limited vs. Bujji @ Manemma and another3, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh was pleased to observe that merely because the deceased was son of 3 2010 SCC ONLINE AP 667 10 SSRN, J CMA.No.537 of 2006 owner of the tractor trolley, it cannot be said that relationship of employee and employer between them did not arise and hence the deceased was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(N). There is no bar under the Act to say that father should not employ his son, as such the appeal by the Insurance Company against the order of the Commissioner making liable along with respondent No.2 was dismissed.
Telangana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1