SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Kar) 30

B.S.PATIL, A.M.FAROOQ
BALU RAMA PATIL – Appellant
Versus
RAMESH SHANKAR RAO – Respondent


Advocates:
K.SURYANARAYANA RAO, S.R.SHINDE

PATIL, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, the same is taken up for final hearing.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The claim application filed by the applicant was rejected by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner holding that the injured driver of the Car is not entitled for compensation as he does not fall within the definition of the term 'workman' as defined under Section 2 (1) (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ).

( 3 ) BRIEF facts which are essential for the disposal of the case are as under. That the appellant who was working as a Driver of the Ambassador Car bearing registration No. GA-01-A-5762, belonging to Respondent No. 1 met with an accident on 29-06-1999. It is contended that while he was driving the said vehicle, it dashed against a truck bearing registration No. KA 22-A-28. He further contended that the accident occurred while he was returning from Gao to Belagum near Macche Bus Stand. Alleging that he sustained compound fracture and other injuries, the claimant preferred a claim petition before the Workmen's Compensat









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top