Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.73 seconds)The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
The Divisional Manager United India ... vs Yallappa Bhimappa Alagudi And Anr. on 7 December, 2005
"After examining the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court relied upon by the second opponent it is seen
that the owner of the vehicle being the sole witness has
been unsuccessful in establishing his case but in this
proceeding the owner of the vehicle has appeared before
this Court even though he is a relative of the deceased, and
has submitted in his objections, even evidence that even
though the deceased was his younger brother he was
working as a driver under him, and has admitted that he
was paying salary to him. The applicant in support of his
case has submitted that Hon'ble High Court judgment in
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yallappa Bhimappa
alagudi which I have examined in depth which holds that
there is no law that relatives cannot be in employer-
employee relationship. Therefore it is not possible to ignore
the oral and documentary evidence in favour of the
applicant and such evidence has to be weighed in favour of
the applicant. For these reasons I hold that the deceased
was working as driver under first opponent and driving
Toyota Quails No.KA 02 C 423, that he died in accident on
3-9-2000, that he is a 'workman' as defined in the
Workmen's Compensation Act and it is held that he has
caused accident in the course of employment in a negligent
fashion which has resulted in his death".
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 30 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
1