UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGER MS.GEETA NAIR vs MR.MANOJ MAHADEO VETKOLI AND ORS. Advocate - SURESH RAMAKANT PADWAL, RESP. NO. 1 — HCBM10180322018
Case under Workmens Compensation Act Section 30. Next hearing: 29th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010180322018
Next Hearing
29th April 2026
Filing Number
FA/11548/2018
Filing Date
10-04-2018
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
Bench Type
Single
Category
COMPENSATION ( 7 )
Sub-Category
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM OTHER INJURY ( 5 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGER MS.GEETA NAIR
Adv. KMC LEGAL VENTURE
Respondent(s)
MR.MANOJ MAHADEO VETKOLI AND ORS. Advocate - SURESH RAMAKANT PADWAL, RESP. NO. 1
MR. LAXMAN MALAJI VETKOLI
Adv. RESP. NO.
MR. HENRY H D'SOUZA
Adv. RESP. NO. 1
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
NOTIFICATION
AT 3.00 P.M.
AT 3.00 P.M.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-04-2018 | NOTIFICATION |
| 23-04-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 29-04-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
Orders
Case Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed United India Insurance Company's appeal under the Employees Compensation Act on 29th April 2026. The Court upheld the Commissioner's findings that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and the vehicle owner, and that the claimant suffered 100% functional disability (despite 56% medical certification) because his physical injuries prevented him from continuing his occupation as a driver. The Court found these were factual determinations requiring no substantial questions of law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed United India Insurance Company's appeal under the Employees Compensation Act on 29th April 2026. The Court upheld the Commissioner's findings that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and the vehicle owner, and that the claimant suffered 100% functional disability (despite 56% medical certification) because his physical injuries prevented him from continuing his occupation as a driver. The Court found these were factual determinations requiring no substantial questions of law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts