restoration of award - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules Insurance Company Liable for Worker Compensation Alongside Employer

25Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Insurance Company Liable for Worker Compensation Alongside Employer

The Supreme Court held that under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, an insurer can be made a party and held jointly and severally liable for compensation if the employer's liability is covered by the insurance policy. The Court clarified that Section 19 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to determine the liability of the insurer, ensuring the workman's remedy is effective and not illusory. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a claim filed by a workman (the second respondent), who was employed as a driver by the appellant, Alok Kumar Ghosh. The workman suffered a disabling injury due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. He filed for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, against both his employer (the appellant) and The New In...

Supreme Court Reinstates Separate Compensation for “Loss of Enjoyment of Life” in Motor Accident Cases

The Supreme Court held that compensation for permanent disability is a distinct head from loss of income and cannot be denied merely because the latter is awarded. It further ruled that future medical and attendant charges must account for the victim's full life expectancy, not a restricted period. The Court also reinstated compensation for loss of enjoyment of life and family's pain and suffering, emphasizing these are legitimate and independent heads of claim. Facts Of The Case: On July 3, 2011, the appellant, Kavin, a 21-year-old arts student, was travelling as a passenger in an Omni bus from Coimbatore to Chennai. At around 10:15 PM, the bus, driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed against a tamarind tree on the left side of the road. The accident resulted in grievous inj...

Supreme Court Slams Differential Pay, Upholds Fair Value for Fruit Trees on Acquired Land

The Supreme Court ruled that similarly situated landowners must receive equal compensation in land acquisition cases. It held that a prior judicial decision awarding a higher multiplier for identical orange trees constituted a "special circumstance," justifying the restoration of a 15x multiplier over a reduced 10x multiplier to prevent discriminatory treatment. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the appellants, landowners from village Khanapur in Akola district, whose land was acquired by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation pursuant to a notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in August 1995. Possession was taken in April 1996. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the landowners sought a reference to a civil court. In its 2011 award, the reference court gra...