IN THE HIGH Coum' OF KARNATAKAV
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWM3 A 7 % "
DATED THIS THE 2ND DA_YM()F A}?RiL: _ J H
BEFORE A % ',
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'§3§CE "§2Av1k
M.F'.A.NO. 1 132A4/[2005 ['wc:A;'
BETWEEN:
2. HUBLI ELECTRICITY'SUPFI,.;EES'C0uLTD
DIVISIONAL 0FFICE,'Q&__M._, * *
NEERU NAGAR, ;_BELG-AUMfl_ .
BY
I
2. MfS.VKARN'ATAKé&'PQWER TRANSMISSION
CORP-'QRvATE{)N' Am3,A CORPORATE OFFICE
; 'CAUVERY ESHAVAN,
~ K;.__(}.R_OAD;"BA.Ix¥(}A[,ORE 560009,
, REFRESENTED BY rrs
" - TAGENER MANAGER (A 3: HRD) .. . PETITIONERS
'(By's;~1. &: c.K.sUBRAMANY, ADV.)
5" " AXKSA1 BARATH1 DIRGAPPA PATEL
..BAf3~EWADI CHOWLA
SHANIVARA KOOTA
"BEL(}AUM RESPONDENT
(By Sri. LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADV.)
£ rs”
THIS MFAIS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF THE
WORKMEN’S.COMPENSA’i’ION ACT, AGAINST THE
IUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 5.10.2005 PASSED IN
WCAISR/79104 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR 0FF}CER:AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENS:2i’I’iO?{,.
DIVISION4, BELGAUM, AWARDING COMPE}_f3S.A*EION’e» V’
RS.3,30,4l3/- AND DIRECTING APPELLANT
TO DEPOSIT THE SAME.
THIS MFA COMING ON EOR7:–IEARINiG~TIi1;é§i’OAY,V
THE COURT MADE THE FOELOWENG: –
JUDGMENQ A i
This is an being
5-‘=g$’i’~’3″i’€d. K’ {he awarded by the
Comiii_iseiOr;er’ if A-fer . ‘s Compensation in
wcA/ s:2;79;2oo4,ea:¢d 6.10.2005.
SIi;’1VIe.:-ijunath, ieamed Counsel appearing
centend that the impugled Order is
in_«1éi§*}{_ is iiabie to be set aside. He contends
that is no injury sustained by the deceased in the
eezirse Of her employment and hence, no compensation
‘ be awarded 3:0 her. In partimiler, he refers to
Exhibit R-2. Exhibit R-2 is the ietter written by the
oak”
doctor to {the appellant infimating the medical
given to the deceased and to say that she
her death on 22.2.2004. Placing’ 1’el.i.r;11fl<:e_ronV:vP3§eRle2 the J j
appelianfis Counsel contends, deeeased
suffer the injuries sustajrledfilay her i'.!.1é_='V0f heg-
empioyznent, but fi*:e__ death edge l:o""t:;1'l:}erc1_1losis.
Hence, he contends diet order calls for
intelferenoe. ' l _ e
2 * 35, l .;l:ifé'jr'5l"lTe"' — V §ri.MahaI1tesl'1, learned
Ville appellant and Sri.Lokesh
l\/IaV1a_V1val'li',"~» V_"1e3;.:3:1ed' appearing for the
respcgndexgt.
learned Counsel for the appellant had
H ” in order to explore the possibility of
settlement. But, however, he submits that no
2 2′ settlenaent could be arrived at and would therefore
plead en merits.
WC
appellants to discard the claim of the
contrary evidence let in by them.
6. The Commissioner.-iwhile –eon4sid.ering.j’«. the ‘
case of the claimants has”, referred’ __to. s.
documentation produced’ the the’
respondents in coming. to his” eenehlsion. “Rcljence was
also placed on Ex.P..’3 Jestablish the fact
that the claimant bleed.in”gi”the nose and was
treated ” dector. No where in the
evidence has’ that the bleeding from the
nose ” or severe” headache was not due to the injury
it as a result of tuberculosis. Even otherwise,
issued by the doctor states that
the patiexit had died due to septicemia.
V H 7. On hearing both the learned Counsel, I am
of the censidered View that the Commissioner has not
committed any error in passing the order, which cslis
fer interference. No grounds whatsoever have been
44″
6
made out by the appellants to seek interference this
001111.
8. For the reasons aforesaid,
devoid of merits is rejected. No’ eosts,
The amount in deposit’.__t5efere
Uansmitted to the Coi13:e1″issioVhr1er_V “Vie? a”WVei’i'<1}1en'VsV
Compensatién
""" ,
Sub*