VENKATARAMANAPPA Vs. S ANANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards personal injuries sustained by him due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.CAW-765, from the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry. He submits that at the time of accident, the claimant was not discharging his duties as a Security Guard and hence he was not entitled to claim compensation from the ESI Corporation. He has cited the following decisions:

(2.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that under Section 53 of the ESI Act, the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act is barred and the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. He relies upon the following decisions:

(3.) We have perused the LCR.