Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insurance amendment act 2002 section 6 amendment of section 28b Court: kerala Page 8 of about 231 results (0.209 seconds)

The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Vs. The Employees State Insura ...

Court : Kerala

..... act 18 of 2010, reads thus: "'employee' means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory ..... appeal no.53/2010. 7 justified in law in exonerating the applicant from the liability to pay contributions under the act in respect of the seven employees referred to in the impugned order and, (ii) whether the insurance court is justified in holding that the applicant is liable to pay contribution in respect of the employees engaged by ..... its food supply contractor.10. issue no.(i): the definition of 'employee' contained in section 2(9) of the act which stood prior to the amendment brought to the section by virtue of .....

The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Vs. The Employees State Insura ...

Court : Kerala

..... act 18 of 2010, reads thus: "'employee' means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory ..... appeal no.53/2010. 7 justified in law in exonerating the applicant from the liability to pay contributions under the act in respect of the seven employees referred to in the impugned order and, (ii) whether the insurance court is justified in holding that the applicant is liable to pay contribution in respect of the employees engaged by ..... its food supply contractor.10. issue no.(i): the definition of 'employee' contained in section 2(9) of the act which stood prior to the amendment brought to the section by virtue of .....

The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Vs. The Employees State Insura ...

Court : Kerala

..... act 18 of 2010, reads thus: "'employee' means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory ..... appeal no.53/2010. 7 justified in law in exonerating the applicant from the liability to pay contributions under the act in respect of the seven employees referred to in the impugned order and, (ii) whether the insurance court is justified in holding that the applicant is liable to pay contribution in respect of the employees engaged by ..... its food supply contractor.10. issue no.(i): the definition of 'employee' contained in section 2(9) of the act which stood prior to the amendment brought to the section by virtue of .....

The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Vs. The Employees State Insura ...

Court : Kerala

..... act 18 of 2010, reads thus: "'employee' means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory ..... appeal no.53/2010. 7 justified in law in exonerating the applicant from the liability to pay contributions under the act in respect of the seven employees referred to in the impugned order and, (ii) whether the insurance court is justified in holding that the applicant is liable to pay contribution in respect of the employees engaged by ..... its food supply contractor.10. issue no.(i): the definition of 'employee' contained in section 2(9) of the act which stood prior to the amendment brought to the section by virtue of .....

The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Vs. The Employees State Insura ...

Court : Kerala

..... act 18 of 2010, reads thus: "'employee' means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory ..... appeal no.53/2010. 7 justified in law in exonerating the applicant from the liability to pay contributions under the act in respect of the seven employees referred to in the impugned order and, (ii) whether the insurance court is justified in holding that the applicant is liable to pay contribution in respect of the employees engaged by ..... its food supply contractor.10. issue no.(i): the definition of 'employee' contained in section 2(9) of the act which stood prior to the amendment brought to the section by virtue of .....

M.K. Kunhimohammed Vs. P.A. Ahmedkutty and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : I(1987)ACC262

..... indemnify the owner was limited to rs. 5)000 as the policy specifically limited the insurer's liability to the minimum requirements of section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the motor vehicles act, 1939 (as amended by the act 56 of 1969).2. the appellant's counsel, shri ravindran, contends that the tribunal erred in finding that saheeda was a passenger at the ..... be considered in the light of the principle stated by the supreme court in motor owners' insurance co. ltd. v. jadavji keshavji modi, air 1981 sc 2059 ; [1982] 52 comp cas 454.8. we shall first consider the provisions of the act as they stood before the amendment in 1969. section 95(2), as it then stood, in so far as it is ..... material, reads:' 95. (2) subject to theproviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to .....

Kunhimohammed Vs. Ahmedkutty

Court : Kerala

Reported in : II(1987)ACC339

..... indemnify the owner was limited to rs. 5,000/- as the policy specifically limited the insurer's liability to the minimum requirements of section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the motor vehicles act, 1939 (as amended by act 56 of 1969).2. the appellant's counsel, shri ravindran contends that the tribunal erred in finding that sdheeda was a passenger at the relevant time ..... ought to be considered in the light of the principle stated by the supreme court in motor owners' insurance co. ltd. v. j.k. modi air 1981 s.c. 2059.8. we shall first consider the provisions of the act as they stood before the amendment in 1969. section 95(2), as it then stood, in so far as it is material, reads ..... :95(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 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Komalavally Amma and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ235

..... amended as per act 54 of 1994 and pointed out that when the driver himself is negligent the owner of the vehicle is not liable to compensate him and the insurance ..... vehicle is insured the insurance company or ..... for his own act of rashness, ..... for the act of the employee ..... the motor vehicles act claiming a total ..... insurance company is permitted to prove contributory negligence or default or wrongful act ..... act or any other law for the time being in force-section 163-a of the act ..... insurance company is obliged to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in an accident which occurred due to the negligent act ..... insurance company aggrieved by the order of the tribunal has filed this appeal.2. sri lal george, counsel for the insurance ..... act or negligent act of the driver of the vehicle.4. we may however refer to the judgment of the apex court in deepal girishbhai soni v. united india insurance ..... company submitted that the tribunal was not justified in passing the award under section 163a of the motor vehicles act .....

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, Vs. Velayudhan and Others

Court : Kerala

..... that notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary the insurer shall indemnify the insured against his legal liability maca nos.2281/2010, etc. 10 under the workmen's compensation act, 1923 and subsequent amendments of that act prior to the date of his endorsement, the fatal accidents act, 1855 or at common law in respect of personal ..... injury to any paid driver (or cleaner or conductor or person employed in loading/unloading but in any case not exceeding seven in number including driver and cleaner) whilst engaged in the service of the insured ..... and in the accident he died. it was held that being an employee, he will be covered under the proviso to section 147 of the act. the insurance company contended otherwise and various decisions of the apex court were considered by the division bench. after examining the question in detail, the division bench .....

General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum V ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1989Ker23

..... in front of munniyoor panchayat office. the respondent's bus was extensively damaged. a claim was filed before the tribunal under section 110 of the motor vehicles act, 1937 as amended by act 56 of 1969 for compensation under the following heads :loss of collection from 22-2-1979 to 10-4-1979 rs. 38,400amount of spare parts and ..... civil court.'petition under section 110 can be filed only for claiming compensation under the different heads specified and where the owner or driver of the motor vehicle or the insurer as the case may be, are liable. the proper forum foradjudicating other claims and claims against strangers, is the civil court. in harinagar sugar mills v. shyam sunder ..... on exts. x-l and x-2 and the evidence of pw. 1 regarding the loss sustained by the respondent and the probable expense for repairing her bus. the insurer paid an amount of rs. 24,000/- on the basis of the estimate. after considering the evidence thetribunal allowed a further amount of rs. 6,600/- towards costs .....