IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 30 of 2004(A) --------------------- WCC.50/1999 of W.C.C. & CONTRACT L.BOARD,TVM. .................... APPELLANT: 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY: -------------------------------------------------------- KOSHY MATHEW, CONSULTANT ARCHITECT, "SRISHTI", T.C.2/2445, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (WRONGLY DESCRIBED IN THE W.C.C.AND THE ORDER AS "M/S.SRISHTI CONSTRUCTIONS & ADVERTISING", THERAKATU, T.C.4/1540, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM) BY ADV. SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT AND 2ND & 3RD OPPOSITE PARTIES: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUNIL C., T.C.13/932, BARTEN HILL, KUNNUKUZHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-37. 2. MANIKANTAN, MANGLEVU VILA VEEDU, KAVALLOOR, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. LT.COL.N.P.S.NAIR, T.C.2643, GOLF LINKS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR - R1 SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN - R3 SMT.REEJA HARI - R3 SMT.VINITHA PRASANNAN - R3 SRI.P.ANIYAN - R3 SMT.RAGAM.K.P. - R3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.776/2004 IN M.F.A.NO.30/2004 DISMISSED 23/05/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. NO. 30 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram in W.C.C.50/99. The brief facts would reveal that one Sunil while working fell down and sustained injuries and according to him he was working under the sub-contractor Sri. Manikandan who in turn was working under the appellant the first opposite party in the W.C.C. The Court below after considering the materials available held that the case of the claimant is correct and awarded compensation against opposite parties 1 and 2. It is that award that is challenged. The only question that arises for determination is whether there is any grounds to interfere with the decision rendered and is there any substantial question of law much permits this Court to interfere. M.F.A. 30 OF 2004 -:2:- Point: 2. Sri. Sunil would contend that while he was working under the sub-contractor and was painting the building constructed by the 3rd opposite party in the W.C.C. the wooden rafter broke and he fell down thereby sustained injuries. On the other hand the present appellant would contend that he is only an architect and adviser and he is giving the architectural advice to the 3rd opposite party and he has never been working as a contractor and therefore he is not liable. The 2nd opposite party did not contest the case at all. On the side of the claimant the claimant as well as the independent witness namely Shelvan was examined. Both of them had deposed that they were employed by the 2nd opposite party, the sub-contractor who in turn was appointed by the first opposite party namely the appellant and work was carried out under the supervision and direction of the first opposite party. The independent witness namely M.F.A. 30 OF 2004 -:3:- Shelvan when examined had submitted that he had been working with the claimant and that he was directed to work by the 2nd opposite party. He would depose that the appellant is the main contractor and the work is carried out as per his directions. So the Court has relied upon the evidence of AW1 and AW2 and had arrived at a decision that the opposite parties 1 and 2 were the persons under whom the claimant was working and therefore made them liable. I do not find any perversity or illegality in arriving at such a decision by the Commissioner and therefore it does not call for any interference. 3. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned medical certificates were produced and a permanent disability certificate of 8% was also submitted. The Court took the loss of earning capacity at only 10% and considering the age applied a proper multiplier and awarded a compensation of Rs.26,564/- with interest. I do not find M.F.A. 30 OF 2004 -:4:- any error in the said finding as well. Therefore, in the absence of any substantial question of law and as the finding of the Commissioner is in conformity with the legal principles, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and I do so. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-