Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Section 4 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Narendra Samal And Anr. on 2 November, 1992
From the aforesaid, it would be clear that Narendra Samal 's case (supra) was a case coming under Section 4(1)(b) read with Schedule. IV of the Act. It is, therefore, not an authority to a claim where the quantum of compensation is required to be determined under Section 4(1)(c)(ii), Explanation-I of the Act.
Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs Srinivas Sabata And Anr on 4 December, 1975
The learned single Judge after referring to the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) held that whether the injury suffered by the workman makes him unfit for work he was doing prior to the accident is essentially a question of fact. It does not involve any question of law, far less a substantial question of law. The learned Judge accordingly held that "the appeal
is not maintainable since it does not satisfy the requirement of the first proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Section 30".
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dinabandhu Pradhan And Anr. on 3 January, 1994
As observed in paragraph 14 by a Bench of this Court in the case of Dinabandhu Pradhan (supra) that the corresponding obligation to make proper assessment of the loss of earning capacity rests on the concerned medical practitioner. The assessment should be unbiased, fair and backed by basis and reasons. It cannot be outcome of any arbitrary guess-work unsupported by basis and/or reason. Sanctity attached to the assessment is on account of expertise which the qualified medical practitio-
Section 30 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
1