Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.55 seconds)Section 2 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Bala Mallamma vs Registrar, Osmania University, ... on 4 December, 2000
Further, in the case of Bala Mallamma v. Registrar, Osmania University (4 supra), while interpreting Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the Division Bench of this Court has held that maintainability and white washing of the buildings falls within the definition of 'trade or business'. But, however, having regard to the real question which arises for consideration in this case, the judgments referred above are not helpful to decide the same. As much as the very employment was in dispute, the real question in controversy is, whether the deceased was in employment or not, as on the date of accident, with the first Opposite Party. As I have already discussed, except the self-serving statement of the interested witness, i.e. A.W.1, there is no other independent evidence on record to prove the employment of the deceased, as such, it cannot be said that the deceased was employed by his own father for the purpose of driving the vehicle. May be that unfortunate applicants are dependants of the deceased, but in absence of proving employment of the deceased with the owner of the vehicle, they are not entitled to claim any compensation. Thought I am conscious of the fact that the scheme of the Act is a beneficial legislation to the accident victims, but, at the same time, the various provisions of the legislation which are in the nature of quasi-penal one, have to be construed strictly. Entertaining any claim, like the one in this case, amounts to travelling beyond the scope of legislation. In that view of the matter, the impugned Award of he Tribunal below is liable to be set aside, and, accordingly the same is set aside.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Etnoori Yadagiri Goud And Ors. on 5 August, 1994
11. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Etnoori Yadagiri Goud (1 supra); a case which arose under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in which, brother of the owner of motor cycle was driving the vehicle and sustained fatal injuries. In those circumstances, as much as no negligence of the deceased was pleaded and established, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the insurer is not liable for payment of compensation.
M. Akkawa vs New India Assurance Co And Ors. on 4 September, 1987
Further, in the judgment, in the case of Smt. M. Akkavva v. New India Assurance Company Limited (2 supra), the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, while interpreting Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in respect of the death of the injured person on account of his own negligence, held that the insurer is not liable for payment of compensation.
District Manager, Food Corporation Of ... vs Gottavilli Venkata Ratnam on 10 December, 2002
In the judgment, in the case of District Manager, Food Corporation of India v. Gottavilli Venkata Ratnam (3 supra), as cited by the learned Counsel for the applicants, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that in view of the provision under Section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, even a daily wage earner falls within the definition of workman.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Section 12 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Section 95 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
1