ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY(Not Applicable) vs MADHU(Not Applicable) — FAO/36/2015
Case under Employees Compensation Act Section SECTION30. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 26th May 2026.
CNR: HPHC010400682014
Next Hearing
13th July 2015
Filing Number
FAO/20476/2014
Filing Date
06-12-2014
Registration No
FAO/36/2015
Registration Date
30-01-2015
Judge
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA
Coram
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA
Bench Type
Single
Category
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER ( 17 )
Sub-Category
APPEAL UNDER THE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ACT ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
26th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY(Not Applicable)
Adv. Deepak Gupta
Respondent(s)
MADHU(Not Applicable)
Adv. ,Ajay Kochhar,Rajesh Kashyap,NEMO,R-4,Rajesh Kashyap 1123
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA
ORDER MATTERS
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-07-2015 | ORDER MATTERS |
| 26-05-2026 | HEARING |
| 20-05-2026 | HEARING |
| 05-12-2023 | HEARING |
| 02-11-2023 | HEARING |
Orders
Summary of FAO/36/2015 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh set aside the Employee's Compensation Commissioner's award of Rs. 3,32,055/- with 12% interest to Madhu and others against Oriental Insurance Company, finding the lower court's reasoning insufficiently explained on critical issues. The court remanded the case for fresh decision, citing the Commissioner's contradictory findings regarding the driver's valid driving license and the employer-employee relationship, without providing adequate reasoning for awarding compensation to the insurance company despite these deficiencies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of FAO/36/2015 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh set aside the Employee's Compensation Commissioner's award of Rs. 3,32,055/- with 12% interest to Madhu and others against Oriental Insurance Company, finding the lower court's reasoning insufficiently explained on critical issues. The court remanded the case for fresh decision, citing the Commissioner's contradictory findings regarding the driver's valid driving license and the employer-employee relationship, without providing adequate reasoning for awarding compensation to the insurance company despite these deficiencies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts