LEELA S/O KUMARAN Vs. JAISON FRANCIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the second opposite party, the insurer in a W. C Case.

(2.) THE first contention of the appellant is that the applicant was only a pedestrian and the story that she was injured while in the course of employment have not been appropriately considered by the commissioner. Having regard to the nature of the finding rendered by the commissioner under issues 1 and 2 on the basis of the testimony of AW2, Ext. A1, F. I. R. , Ext. A2 Scene Mahassar and Ext. A4 charge sheet and also Ext. A7 Accident Register cum wound certificate, I do not find any substantial question of law arising for decision on the finding of the commissioner, that applicant was injured during the course of employment.