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

1992 Supreme(Ker) 442

T.L.VISWANATHA IYER, L.MANOHARAN
New India Assurence Co Ltd – Appellant
Versus
K. Abdulla Kutty – Respondent


JUDGMENT

L. Manoharan, J.

1. These appeals by the Insurance Companies filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "the Act"), raise common questions for determination. The respondents-workmen in the respective appeals filed petitions under Section 22 of the Act for compensation and the Commissioner passed awards. They are challenged. These cases fall under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act inasmuch as the injuries sustained by the workmen did not answer the description of the injuries specified in Part I or II of Schedule I to the Act.

2. In M.F.A. No. 126 of 1990, though Exhibit A-2, disability certificate, states the disability of the workman at 50 per cent, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation found the loss of earning capacity at 100 per cent and awarded compensation accordingly. In M.F.A. No. 985 of 1990, Exhibit A-4, disability certificate, states permanent disability of 30 per cent, the Commissioner found the loss of earning capacity at 45 per cent and awarded compensation on that basis. In M.F.A. No. 58 of 1992, Exh

































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