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

1937 Supreme(Mad) 442

VENKATARAMANA RAO
The Pollachi Transport, Ltd. , by General Manager Mr. G. D. Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Arumuga Kounder – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This appeal is under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act against an order granting compensation to the respondent for an injury he suffered while he was doing the duties of a conductor in a vehicle belonging to the appellant-company which plied from. Palghat to Pattanheri on the 13th March, 1935.

2. So far as the amount of the award is concerned, it has not been challenged before us. Two points were argued before us by Mr. V. Ramaswami Aiyar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant-company. One is the question of limitation and the other is that the respondent is not a workman within the meaning of the Workmens Compensation Act. In regard to the question of limitation, his point is that while the accident took place on the 13th March, 1935, the claim to compensation was instituted on the 12th December, 1935 and notice of compensation was given only on the 6th November, 1935. It is true that under Section 10(1) of the Act, notice of the accident must be given as soon as practicable and the claim must be instituted within six months of the occurrence of the accident. But there is a proviso which provides:

That the Commissioner may admit an



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