REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

N.Sree Ramulu Appellant

V/S

B.Lakshmi Narayana Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PAMARTHI SUBBA RAO VS. H.RAMA RAO AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SONI V. RAM AVTAR TOMAR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP NARAIN SINGH DEO VS. SRINIVAS SABATA [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. MUBASIR AHMED [REFERRED TO]
K JANARDHAN VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
S SURESH VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
RAMPRASAD BALMIKI VS. ANIL KUMAR JAIN [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. MOHD NASIR [REFERRED TO]
YADAVA KUMAR VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
PALRAJ VS. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NEKRTC [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. AJAY KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. MOHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN [REFERRED TO]
JANATHA MODERN RICE MILLS VS. G SATHYANARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. KOTAM APPA RAO [REFERRED TO]
LINGAMPALLI RAJAM VS. COLLIERY MANAGER MORGANS PIT SINGARENI [REFERRED TO]
BALLARI RAJENDRA VS. G GURUMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
RAYAPATI VENKATESWARA RAO VS. MANTAI SAMBASIVA RAO [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. RAJESH HOMANDGE [REFERRED TO]
G ANJANEYULU VS. ALLA SESHI REDDY [REFERRED TO]
GORLA OBULA REDDY VS. K RAJGOPAL REDDY [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. D SIVASANKAR [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. ABDUL KHADER JILANI ALIAS JILANI [REFERRED TO]
K P HANUMANTHA GOWDA VS. DEVARAJU [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VS. BHIMRAO MANIKRAO UNHALE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.M.A.Nos.1210 of 2001, 335 of 2002, 550 of 2002, 1685 of 2002 2274 of 2001, 3406 of 2002 and 2197 of 2003, Smt.A.Malathi, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.M.A.No.2380 of 2002, Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.M.A.No.856 of 2001 and Sri T.Ramulu, learned counsel for the respondents in C.M.A.Nos.1210 of 2001, Smt. V.Sujatha, learned counsel for the respondent in C.M.A.No.335 of 2002, Smt. M.Seetha Devi, learned counsel for the respondent in C.M.A.No.550 of 2002, Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent in C.M.A.No.856 of 2001 and 1685 of 2002, Sri R.Venkat Rao, learned counsel for the respondents in C.M.A.No.2274 of 2001, Sri J.Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent in C.M.A.No.2380 of 2002, B.Devanand, learned counsel for the respondent in C.M.A.No.3406 of 2002 and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for the respondent in C.M.A.No.2197 of 2003.

(2.) In all these cases, a common question of law arises for consideration and so they are being disposed of by a common order with the consent of the counsel for both sides.

(3.) The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is: "Having regard to the nature of the injury suffered by the claimants in these cases, whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation erred in not holding that the claimants should be deemed to have suffered "total disablement" as defined in Section 2(1) (l) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (presently known as the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923) (for short "the Act") and award compensation to them on the said basis?"

Click here to view full judgment.

N.SREE RAMULU Vs. B.LAKSHMI NARAYANA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address