IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 MFA.No. 154 of 2008 ----------------------------- W.C.C. NO. 167/2001 OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, THRISSUR. .................... APPELLANT/ OPPOSITE PARTY: ---------------------------------------------- K.G.RAJU, S/O. KAINOOR THATTAN GOPALAN, KAINOOR P.O., THRISSUR 680014. BY ADV. SRI.U.O.JOSE. RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT: ---------------------------------------- MINOR VIDYADHARAN, REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, C.K. VELAYUDHAN, CHETTUPUZHA HOUSE, P.O. ERAVIMANGALAM, POOCHETTI, THRISSUR 680 756. BY THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.F.A. NO. 154/2008: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 2680/2008 IN M.F.A. NO. 154/2008 DISMISSED SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE, 13/10/2008. SD/- K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.(W.C.C.)No.154 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 13th October, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . First respondent in this case at the age of 16 met with an accident while he was working in Vijay Automobiles Workshop. As a result of the accident, he sustained injuries to the right hand and traumatic amputation of index and middle finger. He was admitted and treated in the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur and according to him, he became permanently and totally disabled. He claimed compensation claiming that he was getting Rs.3,000/= as monthly wages and he had 100% loss of earning capacity. It was also submitted that the above workshop was owned by the appellant. Doctor certified 8% permanent disability and 25% loss of earning capacity. Since the injuries were scheduled injuries, the Tribunal has taken only 16% loss of earning capacity as per the schedule. Only Rs.1,600/= was taken as the monthly income instead of claim of Rs.3,000/= and calculated compensation as per law. The contention raised by the appellant is that he is not the owner of the workshop. The claimant was examined as AW1. He deposed that he was employed by the appellant and he was given wages by him. AW2, a co-worker who saw the accident also deposed that the MFA.(W.C.C)154/2008 2 claimant was employed by the appellant. It is also admitted that the appellant himself took the injured workman to the hospital for treatment. Even if the licence is in the name of his wife or any other's name, actually he was running the workshop and he has employed the injured workman. The Tribunal found that the appellant was the employer and awarded compenstion to be realised from the appellant. The fact that the appellant was the employer is a finding of fact based on evidence and we see no ground to interfere in the same The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE tks