Category: Compensation

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – Compensation – the driver was consistently driving the vehicle, there is every reason to assume that long spells of driving was a material contributory factor, if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death at a young age – Such an untoward mishap can reasonably be described as an accident, only attributable to the nature of employment – Compensation granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. DARIYAO KANWAR & OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and…

Determination of disability – the disablement would be taken as total for the purposes of award of compensation under section 4(1)(b) of the Act regardless of the injury sustained being not one as specified in Part I of Schedule I of the Act – The proviso to clause (l) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not dilute the import of the substantive clause – Rather, it adds to it by specifying categories wherein it shall be deemed that there is permanent total disablement.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDRA BAI — Appellant Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters

Employees Compensation – Death in accident – Relationship of employer and employee has not been proved before the Commissioner – Same being the basic requirement to be fulfilled for claiming compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the appellants may not be entitled to receive any compensation.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANTABAI ANANDA JAGTAP AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAYRAM GANPATI JAGTAP AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…

BURDEN OF PROVING A VALID TICKET LIES ON THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FOR COMPENSATION – Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation as prescribed – Appellants are held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim application till its realisation.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMUKAYI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.