Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.92 seconds)
Branch Manager National Insurance Co ... vs Shri Marenna S/O Hulagappa on 20 January, 2017 cites

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Siby George & Ors on 31 July, 2012

8. The Commissioner keeping in view of the evidence adduced by the respondent No.1/claimant, as he had paid monthly salary of Rs.3,500/- per month, the claimant was aged 21 years and it has been considered by the Commissioner and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,85,950/- with interest at 12% per annum. But the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant places the reliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Siby George and others reported in 2012 ACJ 2126, wherein it has held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 647 - A Alam - Full Document

Kerala State Electricity Board And ... vs Valsala K And Another on 16 September, 1999

"9. The matter once again came up before the Court when by amendments introduced in the Act by Act 30 of 1995 the amount of compensation and the rate of interest were increased with effect from 15.09.1995. The question arose whether the increased amount of compensation and the rate of interest would apply also to cases in which the accident took place before 15.09.1995. A three Judge Bench of the Court in Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Valsala K., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), answered the question in the negative holding, on the authority of Pratap Narain Singh Deo, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC), that the payment of compensation fell due on the date of the accident. In paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the decision the Court observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 302 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ã ... vs Mubasir Ahmed & Anr. Ã .Respondents on 1 February, 2007

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in the course of his arguments has contended that the Commissioner has passed the impugned judgment and award illegally, arbitrarily and erroneously and contrary to the principles of law laid down in regard to holding 40% of the loss of earning capacity and erred in awarding the compensation which is contrary to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and so also contrary to the evidence on record as well as the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. :3: Mubasir Ahemad reported in AIR SCW 2007 1265, TAC 2007 PAGE 3 SC and in Shivalinga vs. Erayya 2004 ACJ 333 and in Full Bench decision reported in ILR 2004 page 193. It is also contended that the ratios of these reliances are applicable to the grounds urged in this appeal by the appellant/Insurance Company. Therefore, it requires to be re-appreciated by the evidence on record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 293 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1