IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 MFA.No. 4 of 2005() ------------------- WCC.21/2000 of W.C.C.,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANTS: OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2: ------------------------------------- 1. GRACYKUTTY ZAKKARIA, PROPRIETOR, GRACY TIMBERS, THELLAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. V.C.THOMAS, GRACY TIMBERS, THELLAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP RESPONDENT: APPLICANT: ------------------------- 1. BABU C., S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, CHANDIYALIL HOUSE, MATTAKKARA P.O., RESIDING AT KUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE, KARAPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. ADDL.R2 UNITED INDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE, PARAKULAM BUILDINGS NEAR COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM- 686002 ( IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 20.2.2007 IN I.A. 265/2007) ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R1 SRI.R.V.SREEJITH FOR R1 SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR ADDL.R2 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. 60 OF 2005 IN M.F.A. NO. 4 OF 2005 DISMISSED SD/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 4 of 2005 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair .J, This appeal is filed challenging the award of compensation granted by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent herein during the course of his employment in the saw mill owned and managed by the opposite parties. Admittedly the 1st appellant is the Proprietress of the saw mill, who is no more and the 2nd appellant who is the brother of the 1st appellant is conducting the saw mill. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. P.V.Jyothiprasad counsel appearing for the additional 2nd respondent impleaded in this appeal viz. United India insurance Company Limited, Kottayam Branch . The challenge against the award is only to be rejected because the 1st respondent/claimant has not proved his employment, salary earned and the fact that the injury was sustained during the course of his employment. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, we find that the Commissioner has applied the formula prescribed under the statute and there is no scope for interference in the amount of compensation granted. However the appellants' claim for reimbursement from the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- said to be covered by the Policy. We feel that the Commissioner has got M.A.C.A. No.4 of 2005 -2- no occasion to decide the above said issue because the appellants have not got impleaded the Insurance Company at that time, on the other hand, the evidence given by the 2nd appellant shows that there was no policy covering the employee concerned. However counsel for the appellants submitted that the same was a mistake, a copy of the policy is in fact produced before us. We feel if there is a mistake committed by the appellants about the existence of the policy the same should not led to denial of benefit under the policy. We therefore direct the Insurance Company to verify the genuineness of the policy. If there is a valid coverage for the employee, there will be a direction to the Insurance Company to release the compensation amount to the extent covered by the policy and indemnify the appellants without any delay. This appeal is disposed of. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------- M.F.A. No. 4 of 2005 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 29th October 2008