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

Workmens Compensation Act Section 30

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

19-04-2018

NOTIFICATION

23-04-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

29-04-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

Orders

29-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case