SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(AP) 353

G.CHANDRAIAH
United India Insurance Co. , Ltd. , Divisional Office-X, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
Jejerath Kamble – Respondent


JUDGMENT :-Heard both the Counsel.

2. Since both appeal as well as cross-objections arise out of same W.C. and the parties are common, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 29-5-2001 passed by the Court of Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Nizamabad, in W.C. No.33/1997 (F) the Insurance Company filed the appeal.

4. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Commissioner, the claimants, who are brothers and mother of the deceased, filed cross-objections for enhancement.

5. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as cleaner on the lorry bearing No.ATR-6517 under the employment of owner of the lorry. United India Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the lorry. On 7-4-1996 at about 5.30 p.m., while the lorry was· going from Hyderabad to Nagpur, when the lorry reached the shivar (outskirts) of Dudgaon on National High Way No.7, in front of South and North Owners and Drivers Association, the driver of the lorry asked the deceased to see the rear tyre. But accidentally, the deceased fell down and came under the rear tyres due to which his head was crushed and he d

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top