Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Oriental Fire & General Insurance ... vs Ram Sunder Dubey And Ors. on 17 December, 1981
Co. Ltd. v. Ram Sunder Dubey 1982 ACJ 365 (Allahabad). I, therefore, deem it appropriate to give my reasons for taking the contrary view.
Govind Nayak vs Shyam Sundar Soni And Ors. on 15 July, 1986
21. I would, therefore, reject the submission made by the learned lawyer appearing for the appellant and lay down that in determination of the 'just compensation' in a claim case filed in exercise of the option under Section 110-A A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claims Tribunal is not bound to confine the amount of compensation to the Schedule in the Workmen's Compensation Act. Once 1 take this view, then it must be held that Govind Nayak's case, (supra), has not been correctly decided.
Smt. Gayatri Devi vs Tani Ram And Ors. on 15 January, 1976
See Gayatri Devi v. Tani Ram .
Section 95 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gonti Eliza David And Ors. on 26 October, 1983
16. The observations made in a Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gonti Eliza David 1984 ACJ 8 (Bombay) : 1984 (1) ACC 240, also give support to the above view to some extent. It is no doubt true that if the driver had suffered the injury due to his rash and negligent driving, a claim under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act could not have been Maintainable for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Sic. volenti non fit injuria), as a person cannot claim advantage for his own wrong.
Subasini Panda And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 13 January, 1984
11. There is yet another decision of this Court decided by my learned brother Misra, J. in Subasini Panda v. State of Orissa 1984 ACJ 276 (Orissa) : 1984 (2) ACC 13. This was a case in which the accident had taken place on 7-10-1972 where the driver of the jeep belonging to the State of Orissa died in the accident. The claims Tribunal had dismissed the claim on various grounds and, on appeal, the contestant insurance company had set up a plea that compensation was awardable only against the employer, and that the insurance company was not liable. This contention was repelled on the following observation:
Smt. Kalawati vs Balwant Singh And Anr. on 19 November, 1984
15. The Allahabad High Court in Kalawati v Balwant Singh 1986 ACJ 550 (Allahabad), while considering the case of a bus conductor who was killed while be was supervising unloading of passengers' luggage from the roof of the bus being hit by a truck has held that the cause of action against a tortfeasor, i.e., the owner of the offending vehicle, was independent of the statutory right of the employee to get compensation from his employer and suggested for suitable amendment of the statute to obviate the above malpractice. I find myself in whole-hearted agreement with the above observation of the learned Judges. In paragraph 26 of the report, the Allahabad High Court has also taken note of the fact that compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is substantially more than the amount awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I, however, find a more direct decision of the same High Court in the case of Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins.
1