RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJU versus YUDHVIR SINGH & ANR.

RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJU versus YUDHVIR SINGH & ANR.

The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as referenced in the Explanation to Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, is not applicable to claims under Section 166; a disability certificate issued two years after the accident and not supported by the examination of its author is inadmissible and cannot support a claim for higher compensation.

Parties
Appellant: Rajesh Kumar @ Raju; Respondents: Yudhvir Singh & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in MAC Appeal No. 886/2005
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Assessment, Admissibility of Evidence, Interpretation of Motor Vehicles Act S.163 a and S.166
Motor Accident Compensation Disability Assessment Admissibility of Evidence Interpretation of Motor Vehicles Act S.163 a and S.166

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajesh Kumar @ Raju

Appellant

Yudhvir Singh & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in MAC Appeal No. 886/2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 applies to claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
  2. 2 Admissibility of disability certificate issued by Civil Surgeon after two years of accident in assessing compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as referenced in the Explanation to Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, is not applicable to claims under Section 166; a disability certificate issued two years after the accident and not supported by the examination of its author is inadmissible and cannot support a claim for higher compensation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed