IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 48 of 2007() ---------------------------- WCC. NO.11/2001 of COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT ---------------------------------- SAJIKUMAR, S/O KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, SAJI BHAVAN, NEDUVATHOOR, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENTS/ 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. G.THOMAS, S/O GEEVARGHESE, CHAMAVILA VEEDU, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 2. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOTTARAKKARA. BY THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.F.A. No. 48 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kollam in W.C.C. 11/99. The appellant/applicant sustained injuries in a road accident and he claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner found that he is entitled to compensation, accepted the disability certificate and calculated the maximum income that can be fixed at that point of time and applied an appropriate multiplier as per the index and granted the compensation. The memorandum of appeal would reveal that the challenge of the claimant is that no compensation is granted for pain and suffering and for medical expenses. The compensation being one coming under schedule 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, he can be compensated only as per the said provisions and there cannot be any grant of compensation for pain and suffering. The Tribunal has taken the maximum income that was possible at that point of time and fixed the compensation accepting MFA NO.48/07 2 the disability as such in the absence of any certificate to show the loss of earning capacity, and granted the compensation. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal, which warrants interference. But it appears from the award that though there is a finding regarding the liability of the Insurance Company and there was a direction to the 2nd opposite party to deposit the amount. In the last sentence instead of writing the 2nd opposite party it has been written as 1st opposite party, which appears only to be a mistake especially in the light of the finding that the exoneration of liability from the Insurance Company is not proved by it. Therefore, with the modification that it will be the Insurance Company that is liable to pay or deposit the amount, the MFA is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MFA NO.48/07 3 MFA NO.48/07 4 MFA NO.48/07 5