IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 MFA.No. 358 of 2003() ---------------------------- IC.38/1999 of E.I.COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT : ------------------------------------ JAYALAKSHMI AMMA, INS.NO.54-1111425, KURREPUZHA, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM (EMPLOYEES OF M/S.PARVATHY MILLS KOLLAM) BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : --------------------------------------------- 1. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, TRISSUR. 2. M/S.PARVATHY MILLS, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN - R1 SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) - R2 SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN - R2 SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA - R2 SMT.UMA GOPINATH - R2 SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON - R2 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ------------------------- M.F.A.No. 358 OF 2003 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees State Insurance Court, Kollam in I.C.No. 38/1999. The claimant whose claim was dismissed has come up in appeal. It is a case that on 25.11.98 while she was proceeding to mud thread as part of her job she fell on a fit and hit on a platform and thereby causing sprain to her in the lumbo sacral area which resulted in permanent partial disablement. The Corporation has totally denied the matter. According to them their officer on investigation found that it is not true. The evidence in the matter consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 to 4 and DW1. Exts. A1 to A5 and B1 to B4 were marked. But it is to be stated that unless there is a real substantial question of law an appeal against the decision on facts is not maintainable under the law. It is also settled in law that when even two views are possible and the Trial Court takes a view, it shall not be ordinarily interfered with and therefore with these principles in mind one has to proceed. PW1 is the claimant herself. PW2 is Sri. Prasannakumar. She had supported the case of the claimant. M.F.A. No. 358/2003 2 So far as Anandavally Amma who has give the statement it is seen that she was not even present on that day and she was on leave. Therefore her statment cannot be of much importance. There is a case that the time keeper had erased the Attendance Register. So far the Attendance Register is concerned, the court held that there had been correction and it also have to be viewed with caution. The court also found that there was correction in the total Attendance for the month. Really if she was on duty and it must have been 18.6 days. But in the Attendance Register it is 17.6 days but she had been paid for 18.6 days. PW4 the custodian of Ext. A3 Register pleaded ignorance about correction. So it can be seen that there was lot of suspicious entries in the document and the court also held that there was no enmity for the officer of the Corporation to give false evidence and thus has come to the conclusion. I do not find any illegality on the finding by the court. The appreciation of evidence also is proper and therefore there is no substantial question of law in this appeal at all. So the appeal is devoid of merit and hence dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm