-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS Tlwlli 1.7" DAY OF l\EOVEl\/Il§3l'~3R, 2009
B EFO RE
THE l"lON'BL1'P1?A1;..No.£;oé$;/éooléa'
BETWEEN:
The New India AssLn'2mCe: C0II1pVt>1I1.}l/' ~~Li111l1f&3.-':1. .
Chickmagalur Branch. "
Through its Regional Ol'fiC€;'~..«
No.2~B, Unity Building
Dr. Kalinga Rao Road, V V'
Bangalore ~ 560 02?.
Rep. by its Depfiigy léilasxzxgétr,
Sri. C.R. SL1b'%a1n;i'11yéi b ...APPELLAN'l'
(By Sri. I3'.'C';o':3a§§:ha}iéiA:i1a A Ré"Q.aj:11121ga1*. Birux".
" * w. Kadlur 'Pal uk.
r _ C3hl(:kmagalL1r [District
l "Rep. by its Memagement. ...R'EJSPONDE3N'l'S
" ll (By; Sri.. Vigneshwar S. Sllastri, Adv. for R. l)
{R2 Served)
M2-
This lvhscellaneous First. Appeal is filed un(le.3' SE'.(,'l..iO11
30(1) 0fW.C. AC1: against' t.l'1ejL1dgmem dated 29.02.2008 passed
in WCA/NF/52/2003 on Ihe file of lhe Labour Ol'i'ic:er and
Commissioner for Workmen Compensatjorl. SL,1li)~Di"\">.:i.:;'3"if_.)Il-l.
Cl1iekar1'1agali,.uz awarding 21 compensal.ion of
imerest @ 1.2% PA.
This appeal con'1i1'1g on for adnj2l1'sls1o:'1 1.1338 --lC.o{zri.
delivered the following: 0 V 0 0' ll 0
Junomfim
Appeal by the InsL117-ancre Confija11ly--»..qL1es1.lioning,its liability
in respect. of an ll(;s1'_i1_,:'2»9.2.2008 by the
Commissior1er for' Wo__1'km:efillC'ca.ij:pe1j:sat:ioVn ,... i*hickmagalu1*.
2. i{e's'poijr;;lez1tl 1"--cl2iir112l£1't:ifiied a claim pei"i1ion imeralia
alleging tfhal 'she _W-a's'Al.wt3rkiang in 21 l\/Ialu Sleepers (P) LtCl.._ as a
Coolie. On 5:9.2:003--._ feslprgillidenl. elaimam. suffered eye injury
and _'\74V:3..S1§1Cl!I)il.l.(3dV"'i.O_'E;h£': l'10spiI'.a1 for treaimem. In this rega1'd._
.l--..AresAtl5or1der_1{~l\loV. filed a Claim petition before the Commissioner.
_.Re_sf;oI1de1'1i No.l got herself' ex:-miiiled and also
exAami11ec1__one cloctor. The doeior has st.a.1'.e(.i t.l1211.. there .9. loss
T l0,f'v20_% visibility. Based on the same. the Commissiorier has
so _§le§ermi.ned the eompensenjon at Rs.46.82l/--. As against the
0 same. Insurance Cor1'1pa1'1y has filed t'l'1is z1;,i;)e.2:1l.
éxfix
:2'
l3.
4. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellaitt is that. respoaident e.lai1'11aht was not an employee as
on the date of the alleged aeeide1'1t anti she I't'iI11E1i1'1t';'.(_l_7'hhléibseill
from duty from July onwards. Furtlier e()r1t4e11ti(>1i.y..is':
alleged injury is not the injt.i1'y suffered di,i1"ing
employment; and it is a. cateraet whieleill h'ady_ the
period of time and as such the lV11st1i'di3ee'-C.o111péi:ly"is
to pay the coiripensation.
5. On the eoiitraiy. le:-l_:l1'n§e.cl'e.oti,hsel for the respondent
No.1 submitted tlist, no p1*odt:’e{ed–l”to show that she
was not eniploj;_fleell;1j;1’o1′ the ieriipltiyelriis-examined noi’ relevant
dooumeiflt.sll”2u’eAV.p1’oc.itiC:ed”‘to”-substzmtliate t.he contentions raised
in this aptpelal. ‘
Fact l.l”‘1€t’t. the rlespondent No.1 was an employee of the
i*espol:1de’;f::’i. i\ie.,2 is not ir1 dispute. However. what is disputed is.
as on tl*1e.d:-ttle o’f_2tceident.. respondent. No. 1 was not working and
she ‘~had_v’1*e1Iie1ir1ed :;tbsent. To prove this. some i’eeo1’ds are
“”-__l’f)tf0CllJ.C€3ClV,. ” However, the Commissioner has disbelieved those
y l’ret:o_rdl.s on the ground that. they are not the aL1ther:tieat’e.d copy
.o they have been sigghed by proper authority and further the
V employer has not been examined. As far injury is concern, it
is not possible to give 21 finding as to whether the eataraet. was
developed over the time in usttz–Ll eotirse or the ir1jm”y was as d
«9&
“4”
result of the 1*esp011cien1 No.1 exposing llcrself to cemem~dust’
du.1’i11g the course 0i’e111p1oyme1’1I. The (*.011te11ti0ns raised are
questions ofdisgauiccl facts. E iiud no :~3ubst’am.ia11 c1L1estic)1:’1y0i.i law
arises in this appeal. ‘
E-Ee’nC<~:, appeai faiis and same is dismissed.
*,3U9GE_: