CHANDRASHEKHAR Vs. EREGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dismissal of the claim petition has given rise to this appeal and the only point that is involved in this matter is whether Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to seek relief from the forum under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the ESI Act' ).

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant mr. K. V. Narasimhan submitted that the accident in question took place on a public road before the appellant could enter his office premises and further, the appellant was going on his own bicycle when the accident took place involving a Tempo. Therefore, it was submitted that the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on section 53 of the ESI Act as well as on the judgment of this court in the case of United India insurance Co. Ltd. v. K. N. Thipperudraiah, 1997 ACJ 878 (Karnataka), on that point.

(3.) HAVING heard the submissions made by both sides, it is clear from the facts narrated in the course of the order passed by the Tribunal that the appellant was going on his own bicycle and just before entering the office, the accident took place involving a Tempo and, therefore, the question of the case coming within the purview of section 53 of the ESI Act does not arise and furthermore, the injury sustained by the appellant also does not come within the purview of section 2 (8) of the ESI act. Section 2 (8) of the ESI Act defines employment injury as follows: