UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. H PALAKSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- An accident occurred on 25-10-1996 at 6. 30 p. m. . near K. B. Cross, involving Lorry bearing No. KA-34-5999, driven by the first respondent and another lorry bearing No. TMD-5099, driven by the driver concerned and consequent to that, the first respondent herein wanted to have the matter settled with other driver. At about 7. 00 p. m. , the first respondent/driver questioned the driver of the other vehicle for not giving the compensation and this led the driver of the Lorry TMD-5099 pushing the first respondent, leading to the first respondent sustaining injuries to his left knee. The application filed by the first respondent for compensation before the W. C. Commissioner came to be allowed putting the liability on the appellant herein who is the insurer of the Lorry bearing no. TMD 5099. The compensation of Rs. 1,31,082/- was awarded and it is this order of the W. C. Commissioner that is called in question on the ground that the injury sustained by the first respondent/driver was not an injury that arose out of and in the course of employment.

(2.) I have heard the submission made by. the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant shri U. Abdul Khader submitted that the injury sustained by the first respondent was not on account of an accident which arose out of employment or in the course of employment but on the other hand, there is no nexus between the accident and the injury sustained by the first respondent in as much as the act of the first respondent seeking compensation from the driver of the opposing vehicle and on failure of the compensation being paid, the appellant pressing for the same and the driver of the opposing vehicle pushing down the first respondent and consequent injury suffered therefore are not the acts coming within the purview of the expression "arising out of and in the course of employment". Therefore, the W. C. Commissioner was totally in error in allowing the claim application filed by first respondent and awarding compensation as above and putting the liability on the appellant. In this connection, the learned Counsel referred to the decision of the apex Court, reported in AIR 1997 SC 432 and AIR 2006 SCW 6009 : 2007 (1) AIR Kar r 547 and other decisions.