Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: employers liability act 1938 Court: orissa Page 1 of about 822 results (0.074 seconds)

Sovasri Dalai Vs. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of In ...

Court : Orissa

Reported in : (2000)ILLJ172Ori

..... statement is contained in the proposal, personal statement declaration and connected documents or any material information is withheld, then and in every such case but subject to the provision of section 45 of the insurance act, 1938, wherever applicable, this policy shall be void and all claims to any benefit in virtue hereof shall cease and determine and all moneys that have been paid in consequence hereof shall belong to the corporation ..... must intimate the fact to the corporation and in the event of the salary savings scheme being withdrawn from the said employer the corporation shall intimate the fact to the life assured and all premium falling due on and after the date of his leaving the employment of the said employer or cessation of collection of the premiums and remittance thereof in the manner aforesaid or withdrawal of the salary savings scheme ..... my policy for reasons beyond your control, such as in the event of my proceeding on leave without pay or my drawing advance salary without deduction of premium, or my cancelling this authorisation for deduction of premium or my leaving your employment in any such case or in case of withdrawal of the salary savings scheme with you by the life insurance corporation of india for any reason whatsoever. ..... it may be noted here that the employer has no liability in such cases as enumerated in the ..... responsibility which was undertaken to be done by it was not carried out by the employer, the liability to make payment has to be fastened to it. .....

Sharma S.D. Vs. Ramesh Mahakud and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 1993ACJ385; (1999)IIILLJ418Ori

..... payment of compensation to widow of mangal munda on account of his death in course of and arising out of employment, under section 95 (2) (a) of the motor vehicles act the maximum limit of liability of an insurer under workmen's compensation act, 1923, is six employees. ..... on plain reading of the act, it would not be possible for the commissioner to give direction to insurer to discharge liability of the employer who is owner of the ..... (2) subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely-- (a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the workmen's compensation act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in ..... (2) in cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and such payment shall be deposited with the commissioner or made to the workman as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any ..... -section (3) commissioner has been given discretion to recover the compensation along with interest if the employer is in default in paying the compensation due under the act within one month from the date when it fell due. .....

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Rasik Munda and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ655Ori

..... 'section 3 is the provision regarding employer's liability for compensation. ..... nakul chandra monda, air 1964 calcutta 217, in which it was held that normally, a workman can recover compensation only from his employer; exception is found in section 12(1) of the act which gives the workman a right to recover from the person who has entered into a contract with the workman's immediate employer and in that case section 12(2) becomes operative and the principal who has engaged the contractor has a right to recover from the contractor ..... by the general manager, south eastern railway, calcutta, and the divisional railway manager, khurda road division, south eastern railway, khurda, have filed these appeals under section 30(1)(a) of the workmen's compensation act, 1923 (for short, 'the act') assailing the orders passed by the assistant labour commissioner-cum-commissioner for workmen's compensation, cuttack (for short, 'the commissioner') awarding compensation in favour of the claimants and holding the appellants liable ..... in their reply to the notice issued by the commissioner, the appellants while admitting the factual positions relating to the accident denied liability of the south eastern railway to pay any compensation on the grounds, inter alia, that the workmen concerned were not their employees; that section 12 of the act had no application in the case; and alternatively, took the plea that even if they were held to be liable to pay compensation, they were entitled to be indemnified .....

S.D. Sharma Vs. Ramesh Mahakud and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : II(1994)ACC139

..... in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely-(a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the workmen's compensation act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle.under rule 95(a) of the orissa motor vehicles rules a bona fide employee ..... regards payment of compensation to widow of mangal munda on account of his death in course of and arising out of employment, under section 95(2)(a) of the motor vehicles act the maximum limit of liability of an insurer under workmen's compensation act, 1923, is six employees. ..... on plain reading of the act, it would not be possible for the commissioner to give direction to insurer to discharge liability of the employer, who is owner of the ..... (2) in cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further ..... sub-section (3) commissioner has been given discretion to recover the compensation along with interest if the employer is in default in paying the compensation due under the act within one month from the date when it fell due. .....

Div. Manager, New India Assu. Co. Ltd. Vs. Biswanath Burman and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 2(1997)ACC80

..... insurer arises for the principal amount, though the same is required to be paid by the employer as stated in section 3(1) of the act, by the same token, the insurer's liability would arise to pay the penalty which is imposed on the employer because of the default in making the payment.if the employer commits the default in paying the compensation and if it was the liability of the insurer to pay compensation in time, we are of the view that for the default in making payment, the insurer ..... according to us, the mere mention about the liability being of the employer in section 4a(3) of the act is not enough to exonerate the insurer to indemnify the employer in this regard in cases of accident involving a motor vehicle which requires compulsory insurance under the provisions of the motor vehicles act, 1939. ..... if there is any insurance policy taken out by the employer, the amount of liability of the insurance company to indemnify the employer would depend upon the terms and conditions of the contract, namely, the insurance policy and if it is not within the terms of the policy, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the interest and penalty under the act. ..... if an insurer is liable to indemnify the employer for the latter's liability to pay compensation as visualised by section 3(1) of the act we do not find any cogent reason to exonerate the insurer from paying the penalty fastened on the employer because of what is stated in section 4a(3) of the act. .....

Tanulata Pradhan and Another Vs. Mahendra Prasad and Another

Court : Orissa

..... the benefit which the claimant was deriving out of the employment of the deceased person before his death under his employer whereas under the act, the tribunal has to assess the benefit which the claimant was deriving from the person who died in a motor accident while alive irrespective of his employment under any particular master, because the tribunal does no.decide the liability of the master, but the liability of the person guilty of tort. ..... it was submitted that since the employer has paid 3 specific premium to indemnify the risk of the employee/workman under the workmen s compensation act receipt of compensation from the trot-feasor under the m.v. ..... workmen s compensation act makes it abundantly clear that even where a workman has instituted a suit for damages for the injury sustained by him in course of discharging his duties under a particular master against a person other than the master, still then he is precluded from getting compensation against his own master under the workmen s compensation act even though in the civil suit his claim for damages was no.against his employer, but against ..... in a case under the workmen s compensation act, the liability of the master is only quantified. ..... it is further submitted that when the tort-feasor and the employer are two separate persons and the applicants have no option to proceed against the trot-feasor under both the acts, compensation received under the m.v. .....

Godabarish Satpathy Vs. Brundaban Mishra and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 1(1984)ACC460

..... supreme court observed:it is now firmly established that the master's liability is based on the ground that the act is done in the scope or course of his employment or authority.it has been found that respondent no. ..... other hand, if the unauthorised and wrongful act of the servant is not so connected with the authorised act as to be a mode of doing it, but is an independent act, the master is not responsible: for in such a case the servant is not acting in the course of his employment, but has gone outside of it. ..... held to be no defence that the company had issued specific instructions to its drivers not to race with or obstruct other vehicles; the driver whose conduct was in question was engaged to drive and the act which did the mischief was a negligent mode of driving for which his employers must answer, irrespective of any authority or of any prohibition. ..... but a master, as opposed to the employer of an independent contract is liable even for acts which he has not authorised, provided they are so connected with acts which he has authorised that they may rightly be regarded as modes--although improper modes--of ..... it is clear that the master is responsible for acts actually authorised by him: for liability would exist in this case, even if the relation between the parties was merely one of agency, and not one of service ..... it was held that the tortious act was so connected with the employment of the servant as to have a causal relation with the same or to be an incidental result .....

Benudhar Jena Vs. Smt.Sujata Sahoo and Another

Court : Orissa

..... the hon ble supreme court in pratap narayan singh deo (supra) was rendered by a four judge bench, wherein it has been held as under: section 3 of the act deals with the employer's liability for compensation. ..... there is therefore nothing to justify the argument that the employer's liability to pay compensation under section 3, in respect of the injury, was suspended until after the settlement contemplated by ..... employer s liability ..... (2) in cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and such payment shall be deposited with 5 the commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make ..... under sub-section (3) of section 4-a where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under the workmen s compensation act within one month from the date it fell due, the commissioner shall direct the employer to pay simple interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum lending rate of the ..... in paying the compensation due under this act within one month from the date it fell due, the commissioner shall (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest threon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any .....

Godabarish Satpathy Vs. Brundaban Mishra and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1983Ori242

..... 1977 sc 1735, the supreme court observed :--'it is now firmly established that the master's liability is based on the ground that the act is done in the scope or course of: his employment or authority. ..... the other hand, if the unauthorised and wrongful act of the servant is riot so connected with the authorised act as to be a mode of doing it, but is an independent act, the master is not responsible: for in such a case the servant is not acting in the course of his employment, but has gone outside of it. ..... was held to be no defence that the company had issued specific instructions to its drivers not to race with or obstruct other vehicles; the driver whose conduct was in question was engaged to drive and the act which did the mischief was a negligent mode of driving for which his employers must answer, irrespective of any authority or of any prohibition. ..... but a master, as opposed to the employer of an independent contract, is liable even for acts which he has not authorised, provided they are so connected with acts which he has authorised that they may rightly be regarded as modes--although improper modes--of doing ..... it is clear that the master is responsible for acts actually authorised by him : for liability would exist in this case, even if the relation between the parties was merely one of agency, and not one of service at ..... it was held that the tortious act was so connected with the employment of the servant as to have a casual relation with the same or to be an incidental result .....

Khirod Nayak Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : II(1991)ACC441; 1991(I)OLR559

..... if the liability of the insurer arises for the principal amount, though the same is required to be paid by the employer as stated in section 3(1) of the act, by the name taken, the insurer's liability would arise to pay the penalty which ho imposed on the employer because of the default in making the payment. ..... if an insurer is liable to indemnify the employer for the latter's liability to pay compensation as visualised by section 3(1) of the act, we do not find any cogent reason to exonerate the insurer in paying the penalty fastened on the employer because of what is stated in section 4-a(3) of the act. ..... matias burla, 1986 ac] 732 in which a learned singl judge of this court took the view that the amount awarded as penalty under section 4-a(3) of the act being payable by the employer, the insurance company is under no liability to indemnify the employer in this regard. ..... this view was taken by inferring to the language of section 4-a(3) which is as below :'where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this act within one month from the date it fell due, the commissioner may direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount due ..... ; we have stated to because the primary liability of paying compensation is also fastened on the employer would appear from section 3(1) of the act. ..... the insurer, who takes the liability to indemnify the employer, is not the employer.'6. .....