IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 MFA.No. 210 of 2009(G) -------------------------------- ( AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9/12/2008 IN W.C.NO.168/1999 PASSED BY THE COURT OF COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER), KOZHIKODE) --------------------------------- APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT ----------------------------------------- VELAYUDHAN, AGE 66 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHAYICHUTTY, POONAR VEETTIL HOUSE P.O.ARRKKINAR, CALICUT-28. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): OPPOSITE PARTIES -------------------------------------------------------- 1. D.RAJA SANKARAN, MANAGING PARTNER ESTEEM CONSTRUCTION, VIII/5, KOVILAKAM ROAD, KOTTAKKAL, MALLAPPURAM DIST. 2. M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MALIYEKKAL BUILDING, MANJERI ROAD, MALAPPURAM DIST. PIN-676505. BY THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** M.F.A No.210 of 2009-G ***************************** Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Claimant is the appellant. 2. We requested the learned counsel for the appellant to explain the question of law – the substantial question of law, which falls for consideration in this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the dispute between the parties is about the age and monthly income of the claimant. We have considered the data available. We are not persuaded to agree that any question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The dispute about the age is whether the correct age is 55 years as asserted by the petitioner or 56 years as found by the Commissioner. The dispute regarding wages is again whether it is Rs.5,000/- as claimed by the claimant or Rs.2,000/- as found by the Commissioner. The decision, it is seen, is founded on the materials available. No better materials were produced for better resolution of this disputed question of facts. M.F.A No.210 of 2009-G 2 4. We are, in these circumstances of the opinion that no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 5. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/