Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Hanumant And Anr. on 24 March, 2005
22. The learned Single Judge of this Court while
considering the provisions of Section 2(1)(m) of the Act, in
case of the Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. Vs. Hanumant &
Another [2005 (4) KCCR 2320] para 2 held as under:
Manohar Bhimappa More vs Mahadev Bhimappa More And Anr. on 28 March, 2005
23. Another judgment of the learned Single Judge in
the case of Manohar Bhimappa More vs. Mahadev Bhimappa
More [2006 ACJ 850] at para 3 held as under:
Section 22 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bommithi Subbhayamma And Ors. on 21 February, 2005
8. Therefore, in the instant case, carrying of
one or two bags by deceased cannot be construed as
carrying of "goods". Since the Insurance cover note
produced at Exhibit P-4 goes to indicate that the vehicle
in question was a goods vehicle, the liability fastened on
the Insurance Company by the MACT is unsustainable in
law, particularly, in the light of the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others. The question of
appellant-Insurance Company being saddled with the
liability will not arise, as such, the finding of the MACT
in this regard will have to be set aside and it will be the
owner of the vehicle i.e., the respondent No. 7, who will
have to satisfy the award passed by the MACT."