Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)

Shivalinga Shivanagowda Patil And Ors. vs Erappa Basappa Bhavihala And Ors. on 1 December, 2003

19. The issue as to whether the loss of earning capacity shall be assessed only by the qualified medical practitioner and as to whether the learned commissioner is empowered to assess the same on his own without the assistance or overlooking the assessment of the qualified medical practitioner arose for consideration before the Supreme Court, our High Court and various High Courts. The question as to whether the percentage of disablement can be coextensive with the loss of earning capacity in all situations and as to whether loss of earning capacity depends upon the injury and the nature and character of the avocation of the workman and whether medical evidence though relevant cannot be a decisive factor, came up for consideration and the same is answered by the High Court of Kerala (Division Bench)and Karnataka (Full Bench) in the following cases (i) 1993 ACJ 1035 Kerala High Court United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others V. Sethu Madhavan and others; (ii) 2004 (2) TNMAC (FB) Karnataka 422 Shivalinga Shvangowda Patil V. Erappa Basappa Bhavihala; and (iii) 2006 ACJ 775 Andhra Pradesh High Court National insurance CO. Ltd., V. M.Shyam Prasad and another.
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 57 - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sreedharan on 12 January, 1995

23. Our High Court in 2010 1 TNMAC 161 Madurai Bench has in para 8 by relying upon the Supreme Court judgment above referred to and full bench of Kerala High Court reported in New India Assurance Co.Ltd., V. Sreedharan in 1995 ACJ 373 held that the loss of earning capacity must be fixed by the Doctor. In the case decided by the High Court, PW2 Doctor has assessed only permanent disability and has not spoken about the loss of earning capacity, as such the High Court is pleased to remand the matter to the learned commissioner for reassessing the loss of earning capacity by giving opportunity to both parties to examine doctor to speak about the loss of earning capacity.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

M/S. Victorian Granites (P) Ltd vs P. Rama Rao & Ors on 9 September, 1996

21.Oral testimony before the court has got highest worth and credibility than a simple certificate and the evidence of qualified medical practitioner regarding permanent disablement of the workman to undertake the work he was doing even in the absence of certification can be accepted. (2007 ACJ 1105)(Bombay) (National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Rama and others)
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Regional Director, E.S.I Corpn. And Anr vs Francis De Costa And Anr on 5 May, 1992

15. In the case decided by Rajasthan High Court, there were two claims made one before the Motor accident claims tribunal and another before the Workmen Compensation Act. The claim before the tribunal is against third party tort-feasor, whereas the claim before the learned commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act is against the employer who are different parties. When the maintainability of two claims arising out of the same accident before two forums was questioned, the same is held in favour of the claimant by the learned Commissioner. The correctness of such order was challenged before the Gujarat High Court. The same after referring to the observations of various High Courts and Supreme Court finally rendered its decision in para 22 to 24 in favour of maintainability of two claims under two different enactment against two different parties i.e. employer in one case and tort-feasor other than the employer in other case. The Rajasthan High Court held at page 281 of its judgment that in such cases where the tort-feasor and the employer happened to be one and the same person, the workman or the claimant has to exercise his option, namely, he can either proceed against the tort-feasor before the Accident Claims Tribunal or he can proceed against the employer under the provisions of the workmen's compensations Act. It is held so, by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 100 in Regional Director V. Francis De Costa.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 141 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next