- (1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Sec tion 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is directed against the judg ment and award dated 20-09-1999, passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Pithoragarh in Workmen Compensation Case No. 22 of 1997 (36 of 1997), whereby the claim of the appellant has been dismissed by the said authority.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 13-06-1995, the appellant who was working as a Lineman with the U. P. State Electricity Board, was repairing the electricity line in Malla Garkha (Dis trict - Pithoragarh ). While he was dis charging his duties, he got injured due to the electric current shock and had to remain admitted in the hospital. Due to the injuries received in the accident, his left hand was amputated, below elbow. As such, he became permanently disa bled. Claimant/appellant was aged 53 years old at the time of the accident. His salary was Rs. 4, 255. 80 per month. No compensation was paid to him on account of injuries suffered by him, as such, he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1, 07, 010/-, under the Work men's Compensation Act, 1923, treat ing Rs. 1, 000/-as monthly pay and cal culating compensation at Rs. 71, 340/-, penalty of Rs. 35, 670/- and 6% inter est thereon. The respondents contested the claim petition, alleging that the claim ant himself was negligent in discharg ing his duties, as he failed to intimate about the fault to the higher authorities. Learned Workman Compensa tion Commissioner, framed following issues: 1. Whether the claimant, during the course of employment with the respondents, got injuries alleged by him? 2. Whether the injuries received by the claimant, were due to his own fault? 3. Whether the respondent had given any compensation or relief to the claimant? If so, its effect? 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation? If so, to what amount?
(3.) WORKMAN Compensation Com missioner, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, arrived at the conclusion that the claimant did suffer injuries, alleged by him during the course of his employment but the claim petition was rejected on the ground that the claimant himself was negligent in performing his duties, as a line man and the department cannot be held re sponsible for it. Aggrieved by the order of said authority, this appeal has been preferred. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;