IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 MFA.No. 62 of 2009() -------------------- WCC.50/2002 of W.C.C. & CONTRACT L.BOARD,TVM. .................... APPELLANT(S): OPPOSITE PARTY: ------------------------------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-3. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT: -------------------------------------------------- SANTHAMMA.K.P., W/O.K.S.JOHN, KUZHIKKAMATHADATHIL HOUSE, CHENGARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE FOR R THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A (W.C.C.Act) No.62 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The employer of the respondent challenges the order dated 4.6.2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Trivandrum awarding a sum of Rs.43,056/- to the respondent who during the course of the employment with the appellant had sustained an injury on 1.12.01 while she was tapping a bark used for extracting the maximum sap from the rubber tree. During that process a branch of the tree got into her right eye resulting in her loosing vision of right eye permanently. She was aged 40 years at the time of the accident. Her average monthly wages for the purpose of calculation of compensation was Rs.2043.83. She was fit to resume duty only from 13.3.2002. She filed the claim petition under Section 22(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923 as W.C.C.No.50 of 2002 claiming a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. Her claim was opposed by the appellant on various grounds. The M.F.A No.62 of 2009 2 Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence allowed the claim and came to the conclusion that the percentage of disability suffered by the respondent was 20% and passed an award for a sum of Rs.43,056/-(Rupees forty three thousand and fifty six only) with interest thereon at a rate of 12% from the date of accident. It is the said award which is assailed in this appeal filed by the employer under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2. The main substantial question of law among the five questions formulated in the memorandum of appeal is as to whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was right in awarding interest from the date of accident as against the date of adjudication. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the light of the decisions in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahammed and another( 2007 (1) LLJ 1035) and Kamala Chathurvedi v. National Insurance Co. ( 2000(4) KLT 862), the interest could be awarded only from M.F.A No.62 of 2009 3 the date of adjudication and not from the date of accident. He further submitted that a sum of Rs.3440.45 had been paid to the respondent by way of half monthly compensation at a time when she was temporarily disabled and that amount should have been deducted from the total compensation paid to her. 4. With regard to the 1st point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant , it is true that in the decisions relied on by the appellant's counsel, the Apex Court with a coram strength of 2 Judges has taken a view that the interest is payable only from the date of adjudication and not from the date of accident. But both the decisions have omitted to note an earlier decision of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Sreenivasa Subata and another (AIR 1976 SC 222 corresponding to 1976(1) SCC 289 wherein the Apex Court with a coram strength of 4 Judges had taken the view that under Section 4A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the compensation for personal injury was liable to be paid as soon as the personal injury was caused to the workman in the accident arising out and in the course of his employment and M.F.A No.62 of 2009 4 not after settlement of the compensation as contemplated by section 19 of the Workmen Compensation Act . A Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rekha (2007(4) KLT 386) has refused to follow Mubasir's case for the reason that where there is a conflict of view between two decisions of the Apex Court that decision which is rendered by a larger bench will have to prevail. Admittedly the decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant have been rendered by the Supreme Court with a coram strength of 2 Judges. Hence, I am bound by the verdict rendered by the Division Bench which has considered the above question pointedly. I, therefore, I do not think that the question raised is a substantial question of law so as to justify admission of this appeal. 5. As for the further contention of the appellant that a sum of Rs.3440/-was paid to the respondent and the same was liable to be deducted., the said contention was not raised before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and therefore it was not the subject matter for adjudication. Such M.F.A No.62 of 2009 5 being the case, I do not think that it can constitute a substantial question of law arising from the verdict of the Commissioner so as to justify admission of this appeal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed holding that the questions of law formulated in the memorandum of appeal do not arise for consideration and even if they arise they do not constitute substantial question of law so as to warrant admission of this appeal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj