Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.60 seconds)The Competition Act, 2002
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Ved Prakash Garg vs Premi Devi & Ors on 25 September, 1997
19. Thus, it is well settled that where there is default on the part of
the insured in not making timely payment of interim compensation to
the workman/employee, the liability to pay compensation under
section 4A(3)(b) of the EC Act cannot be fastened upon the shoulders
of the insurance company. At the same time, the Supreme Court in the
cited case of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi (supra), cited with
approval the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in a case titled as
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Roop Kanwar And
Ors.11, wherein it was held that if an additional premium has been
paid by the employer/insurer to cover compensation under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the liability to pay the penalty
under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act shall also be borne by the insurer.
Section 10 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs Mahavir Mahto And Anr. on 21 November, 2000
Insofar as the decision in L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Mahavir
Mahto (supra) is concerned, it was a case where there was no issue of
payment of additional premium covering liability under the Workmen's
Compensation Act, and therefore, it was held that the insurance company
was not liable to pay the penalty amount under Section 4A(3)(B) of the
E.C. Act.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs Srinivas Sabata And Anr on 4 December, 1975
The decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata
(supra) only propounded the law as to the legal duty of the employer
under Section 4A(1) of the E.C. Act to pay compensation at the rate
provided by Section 4, as soon as injuries are caused to his employee.
The decision was not in relation to liability fastened upon the insurance
company with respect to payment of penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) of
the E.C. Act.
Urmila Rani vs Manjit Kaur & Anr. on 20 March, 2014
21. The decision in Urmila Rani v. Manjit Kaur (supra) by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court does not help the cause of the
appellant/insurance company either because while interpreting Section
4A(3) of the E.C. Act, it was held that the insurance company is not
liable to pay interest payable on the compensation under Section 4A(3)
of the E.C. Act. However, it was held that the insurance company would
be liable, if it is shown that there was a comprehensive insurance policy
Signature Not Verified
FAO 158/2021
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 11 of 12
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:04.04.2025
15:04:40
which would also make the insurance company liable to pay
compensation and interest amount, besides fastening the liability to pay
compensation towards the penalty.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Roop Kanwar And Ors. on 1 August, 1990
19. Thus, it is well settled that where there is default on the part of
the insured in not making timely payment of interim compensation to
the workman/employee, the liability to pay compensation under
section 4A(3)(b) of the EC Act cannot be fastened upon the shoulders
of the insurance company. At the same time, the Supreme Court in the
cited case of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi (supra), cited with
approval the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in a case titled as
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Roop Kanwar And
Ors.11, wherein it was held that if an additional premium has been
paid by the employer/insurer to cover compensation under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the liability to pay the penalty
under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act shall also be borne by the insurer.