A I - M}E<;'fFA;C¥z'kILI;IA_, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE, A I M.F.A.No.636:I/31293; I BETWEEN: ' D.S.THAIvIMA1AH, AGED ABOUT 47 YRS,__ . I " S/O.LATE.SANN'EGOW.DA,'--_ ; ' NO.85, 1ST MAIN ROAD,-I " I 4TH CROSS, B.I.I,NAGARAi;v MYSORE --T A;ppELLANT (BY ASSTSJ AND}, J.K.INDUSTP_IE'S., " A VIKRANTH PLANT, K.R~i.,S.ROAD, I' MANAGII\IiG DIRECTOR. .. RESPONDENT I I (HY SM/s.S.N.MURTI-IY ASSTS.) =i<=i<*=Z==i=$ THIS M.F'.A. IS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF WC ACT I AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/ I 1/2006 PASSED IN WCA/NFC/CR--171/O4 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER & COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, MYSORE, DISMISSING PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. ' THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ttami DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE F*OLLoW1I\i,o:7V_I < JUDGMEEECCAAHW This appeal is filedC._V:iinderA"'Section' of thee' Workmen's Compensation by the gudgment and award Workmen's Compensation-IComniissioner,"iiriysore Dist. Mysore, in wCA,3'NFC/Cii-i*f.i';'2oo'4 dated 15/11/2006 wherein, the applicatio1i..ViilefdCCb3I:tl3.eI appellant herein seeking for cornpensation "towards. the injuries sustained in the jthpat OcCIirred on 16/ 3/ 2004 has been A "* .di«s_rnCissed:. - I . C ~.2.'g_ IV have scrutinized the material on record. The injaterial on record would clearly show that the it appellant had filed an application before the Workmerfs Compensation Commissioner, Mysore, seeking \ , x2' =
compensation towards the injuries sustained by him
during the course of employment on 16/3/2OD4:.fd_:’Fhe
case of the appellant is that, he was workingiwithi
respondent and he sustained injuries déiringititiedtoourse
of employment. He had injuriesV_to_t
underwent surgical operationrin the NIMI%L%&N;?§4’VHospita1V’
and took treatmentvfor six;’rnodnth’saand’that”he joined
service after taking rest doctor.
3. the Workmen’s
Cornpven.sat’i~o_n Exs.P.1 to R6 were
got of the respondent, one
Witness and Exs.D.1 to 13.3 were got
‘ 4f»…v’1’h’e-,’Work1nen’s Compensation Commissioner,
after the contentions of the iearned counsel
appearing for the parties, by an order dated
‘ 1/2006 held that the petitioner sustained injuries
the accident that occurred on 16/ 3/ 2004 arising out
of and in the course of employment. However, having
3
\/
regard to the facts elicited in the cross~examinat_ion of _
the appellant to the effect that now he is doing
work as he was doing before the accident
respondent and getting the sa.lai’fy*—.of
than the salary which he was priorto the V
accident. The Workmeifs Corhpensati.on._C’oni’rnissioner,Vl
held that the claimant has not l\su._ffered””ari$z loss of
income and accordinglyl: petition since
there was no”dis’abili_tygto~’award’-corifipensation. Being
aggrieved this’».3a’ppea1 is filed.
=}}~lea.rd7fth:e.,llea;rh–ed’ counsel appearing for the
parties aridlseriitinizedilthe material on record.
Thelrriateried on record would clearly show that
‘ ~.Co.mpeiisation Commissioner, has held that
lappellantdéelaimant sustained injuries
on Ki’/’£3/V2004 arising out of and in the course of
erriployment. However, it is specifically elicited in the
eross–examination of the claimant that he is doing the
same work as he was doing earlier to the accident and
‘M/\_/&’
that he is getting salary of Rs.3,000/– more than the
salary, which he was getting prior to the accid’ent–«.:an’d
therefore, the petitioner has not sustained,.’::an.y
income due to the injuries sustainec’.– in the_.acci..de11tTa1id
the question of assessing the ”
sustained by the claimanteapjpiellantnhwould
7. The decision.telieyd”‘onVi_:’hy””the learried counsel
for the appellant in c/W 6900,
6901, not applicable to
the facts not helpful to the
claimant ‘– in V thef -»pyre,sen_t'” *-case, in View of the specific
admission the .cfo_s’s{exarnination of the claimant that
hej einployed”with’ the same employer and is getting
‘ than the salary which he Was getting .
priof topthedate of the accident.
~ 8′ Accordingly, I hold that the judgment and
“afifa:?d passed by the Work;men’s Compensation
in “Commissioner, is justified and does not suffer from any error
.\v/E
or illegality as to call for interference in this appeal aqd pass
the following orderh
The appeal is dismissed.
*mvs