Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1(1989)ACC71
..... had been paid by both shanmugam and the petitioner in respect of him upto november 1984 and he was a workman even on the date of the accident since the corresponding benefit period in respect of him was upto june 1985, and as such he is entitled to permanent disablement benefit from the first ..... it is to be pointed out while stating that from 24-11-1984 the third respondent ceased to be an employee under the act, but he had to be provided sickness benefit and medical benefit on the date of accident and subsequently due to contributions paid in the earlier contribution periods, the proviso to section 2(9) of the act has not been taken into consideration ..... respondent it is clearly admitted that even though the third respondent ceased to be an employee under the act with effect from 24-11-1984 he had to be provided with sickness benefit and medical benefit on the date of accident and subsequently due to the contributions paid from november 1983 to may 1984 and from may 1984 to 24-11-1984 ..... ceased to be an employee under the act with effect from 24-11-1984 he was provided with sickness benefit and medical benefit on the date of the accident and subsequently due to the contributions period of november 1984 to may 1984 and may 1984 to 24th november 1984 ..... to be an employee under the act with effect from 24 11-1984 he had to be provided sickness benefit and medical benefit on the date of accident and subsequently, due to the contributions paid from november 1983 to may 1984 and from may 1984 to 24-11-1984 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : I(2000)ACC156; 2000ACJ1378; AIR1999Mad413; (1999)3MLJ154
..... the certificate has been lost or destroyed, or that either before or not later than fourteen days after the happening of the accident the insurer has commenced proceedings for cancellation of the certificate after compliance with the provisions ot section 105; or(b) that there has been a breach of specified condition of the policy ..... be entitled to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely'96(2) (a) that the policy was cancelled by mutual consent or by virtue of any provision contained therein before the accident giving rise to the liability, and that either the certificate of insurance was surrendered to the insurer or that the person to whom the certificate was issued has made an affidavit stating that ..... the above submissions, the following questions would emerge :--1) can the insurance company be fastened with liability, when the driver of the heavy goods vehicle (lorry) involved in the accident had possessed a licence to drive the heavy passenger vehicle, in the absence of special endorsement to drive the heavy goods vehicle?2) whether the defence plea taken by the insurance company ..... of the vehicles is relevant for the purpose of answering the question, whether he was authorised to drive the heavy goods vehicle on the date of the accident, in the light of the ambiguity that could be seen from ex.b1, it is for the insurance company who seeks immunity from liability to establish that the driver was not duly licensed. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1976)2MLJ388
..... in the policy issued by the insurer, there is a condition that the policy would cover an accident only if the person who drives the vehicle holds a licence to drive the same. ..... 9,000 is required and that as the vehicle had been immobalised due to the accident, there was loss incurred (as the car had been run as a taxi) to the extent of rs ..... 2,000 as the amount that the owner of the car lost as a result of the accident, inasmuch as the car which was running as taxi was not able to be put on the road for a long period ..... a rough plan prepared by the police officer who investigated the accident has been exhibited in the case and correctness of the same is not ..... 342 of 1972 arises, is made by the owner of the car (taxi) regarding the damage to the vehicle on the ground that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. ..... therefore, the conclusion of the court below that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus has to be accepte ..... 10,000 for the car, as on the date of the accident the value of the same cannot exceed a sum of rs ..... was the said murugayyan who had been prosecuted by the police for rash and negligent driving regarding the accident and he had been convicted by the criminal court. ..... case of the insurer has been that the bus was driven at the time of the accident by a person who had no licence to drive a vehicle of that type and that therefore, as per the conditions of the policy, the accident is not covered by the same. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1983Mad283; (1983)2MLJ326
..... learned counsel for the claimant (appellant) would say that even if three people travel in the cycle, if the car was not driven at rash and negligent manner, the accident would not have occurred and therefore the number of persons traveling on the cycle should not be taken serious note of. ..... we do not see any reason to differ from the view taken by the tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case that both the car driver as well as the cyclist were blameworthy for the accident and the blame worthiness has to be apportioned at 70 : 30 per cent as between the car driver and the cyclist.8. ..... him by the driver did not have an endorsement enabling him to drive a tourist car, the tribunal held that the driver did not have a valid licence to drive the tourist car at the time of the accident and therefore the insurance company is entitled to disown its liability as per the terms of the policy. ..... what is the quantum of compensation, if any payable by any of the respondents?on the first question, the tribunal after considering the evidence adduced before it, held that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. ..... if the cycle had not gone to the middle of the road, the accident would not have occurred, even if the car was driven at a hectic ..... on the same question the tribunal found that though the driver of the car was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, the accident was also due to the contributed negligence on the part of the deceased. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1982)1MLJ388
..... the facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension.even this theory of notion/ll extension cannot be applied in this case since the workman was not ..... lakshnuah : air1969ap15 , are quoted with approval:it is enough if it is established that : (1) at the time of the accident he was in fact employed on the duties of his employment; (2) that it occurred at the place where he was performing those duties; and (3) that the immediate act which led to the accident is not so remote from the sphere of his duties as to be regarded as something foreign to them.in order to entitle a workman for compensation there must be a causal relationship between the cause of death and ..... the supreme court upheld the view of the bombay high court that the accident which occurred when the bus driver boarded another bus to go to his residence after finishing his work was during the course of his employment. ..... : (1958)iillj249sc , that the facts and circumstances of each will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of the workman. ..... ibrahim mohammed issak : (1970)illj16sc , where it has been observed in the head-note as follows-to come within the act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1981)1MLJ350
..... shall not be so liable:(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days;(b) in respect of any injury not resulting in death, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to-(i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or(ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the ..... the additional commissioner for workmen's compensation framed the following two points for decision (1) whether the respondent is a worker or not, and (2) whether the accident was due to wilful disobedience of the respondent on the first point, the additional commissioner for workmen's compensation, held, relying upon the statement of the respondent, that he was, a workman as defined under section ..... particularly, considerable reliance is placed upon the fulfilment of the following requirements:(1) that an order or rule was already in force at the time when the accident happened;(2) the purpose of that rule or order was that of securing the safety of workman;(3) the order or rule was couched in terra and in words which indicated clearly the purpose;(4) ..... intended to be conveyed by the use of the expression 'wilful disobedience' is that it is diametrically opposed to the idea of 'accident', it is in this context that the evidence placed before the additional commissioner for workmen's compensation has to be scrutinised. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1981)1MLJ375
..... facts of this case, it could clearly be seen that the driver of the tourist taxi has acted outside his authority in taking two more passengers than the permitted capacity and as the accident had occurred while he was carrying an unauthorised load of seven passengers as against the permitted load of five passengers, the owner of the taxi who had not authorised the taxi driver to ..... get compensation and if so to what amount?the tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by the parties in this case and also the parties in the other claim petitions, held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the taxi driver, and that there is a vicarious liability on the part of the owner of the taxi and also the insurer to ..... car who entrusted it to another for plying it as a taxi and the latter had given it to the cleaner for taking a driving test and the vehicle knocking down in an accident resulting in injuries to a third party, held that the owner of the vehicle was not vicariously liable for the tort committed by the cleaner who was driving the vehicle at the time of the ..... decision of the division bench of the mysore high court, wherein the beach held that where the driver of a goods vehicle picked up a passenger and the passenger sustained injuries on account of accident to the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle cannot be held vicariously liable to pay compensation, because giving a lift to a person in a goods vehicle by the driver is outside the scope of his .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(1991)ACC520; 1991ACJ625
..... counsel for the appellant submitted that originally the driver was licensed to drive a light motor vehicle and was also authorised to drive as a paid employee a transport vehicle, but only on 16.8.1981, long after the accident took place, the driver had been authorised to drive a transport vehicle by a special endorsement on the licence and, therefore, the driver of the vehicle cannot be considered to have been duly licensed to drive a tempo on the ..... to drive as a paid employee a transport vehicle, that would suffice to hold that the driver was validly licensed to drive the tempo and as the licence was also valid from 11.8.1979 to 13.8.1982 and the accident took place on 24.12.1980, the endorsement dated 16.8.1981 cannot be construed as enabling him to drive the tempo only on and from that date as he had even been earlier licensed to do so. ..... that the driver had been authorised even prior to 16.8.1981 to drive a transport vehicle as a paid employee and that the licence was valid for the period of 11.8.1979 to 13.8.1982 and therefore, on 24.12.1980, when the accident took place, the driver held a valid driving licence for driving a tempo and the tribunal was quite right in its conclusion in that regard.3. ..... a transport vehicle under section 2(33) of the act included a goods vehicle of the type involved in the accident, as such vehicle would not fall within the category of a public service vehicle intended mainly for the carriage of passengers falling under section 2(25) of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004ACJ225; (2002)2MLJ490
..... section 21 of the workmen's compensation act, 1923 provides that a petition shall be filed before the commissioner for the area in which the accident took place which resulted in the injury of the workman, or in case of his death, the dependent claiming compensation ordinarily resides, or the employer has his registered office. 15. ..... it is contended that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the first respondent under section 22 of the workmen's compensation act since the accident in question took place at tirunelveli, outside the jurisdiction of the second respondent, and the first respondent is ordinarily residing at thuraiyur, tirunelveli. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)6MLJ214
..... drove the bus in thottipalayam section curve in an excessive speed and in a negligent manner and applied the breaks as a result of which the deceased arumugam fell down and died, the very happening of accident has been established by the appellants/claimants and that they cannot prove beyond that, in the considered opinion of this court and therefore, it is evident that the first respondent, being the driver of ..... the bus (owned by the second respondent), who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner resulting in an accident and consequently, this court concurs with the finding arrived at by the tribunal that the accident took place on account of the negligence act of the driver by driving the vehicle in high speed and that the driver of the bus was solely responsible for ..... thottipalayam section curve in an excessive speed and negligently and applied the breaks and as a result thereof he fell down and died and therefore, has come to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of the first respondent-driver driving the bus in an excessive speed and negligent manner and resultantly, he has been held responsible for the ..... and before the bus halted, the deceased arumugam in a drunken mood suddenly jumped down from the running bus and resultantly, he fell on the road and voluntarily invited the accident by his contributory negligence and therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation, much less compensation of rs. .....
Tag this Judgment!