IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 865 of 2002(C) ---------------------- WCC.333/1998 of W.C.C.,(DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER)KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: OPPOSITE PARTIES: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (Sr.) SC, FCI RESPONDENT: APPLICANT: ------------------------------------------ SRI.C. KOYA, S/O. AHAMMED KUTTY, CHENNIYAN HOUSE, PULPARAMBA, P.O. PALLIKKAL, VIA. CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.5240/2002 IN MFA.NO.865/2002 DISMISSED 22/05/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.F.A. No. 865 OF 2002 --------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kozhikode, in W.C.C. No.333/98. It is the case of the respondent/applicant that while he was employed under the first opposite party he received a personal injury by an accident which resulted in the loss of eye sight. Therefore he has claimed a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. The opposite party would contend that he was an employee but denied the accident. It is also submitted that the loss of eye sight was not due to the fall of grain during the job. On an analysis the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs.92,227/-. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred. 2. Learned counsel argues that neither the accident is proved nor the cause of injury is established so as to entitle the applicant to compensation. As far as the cause of accident is concerned, it is true that something had gone into the eyes of the MFA NO.865/02 2 applicant. But a suspicion is created as to whether it is on account of an alkaline part or of a grain. It was during the course of the employment a foreign object had entered into the eye of the applicant which resulted in bleeding. Thereafter he was taken to the hospital and again referred to the Aravind Eye Hospital. The factum of accident has been submitted by AW1 and AW2. The conduct of the appellant could also show that an accident had taken place in the course of the employment and that is why after enquiry they have decided to settle the matter for Rs.23,000/-. It is true that the worker had retracted from the compromise but that will not give permission to the other party to refute a thing, which it had already admitted. So I hold that the worker had sustained injury in the eye on account of the fall of a foreign object in the eye during the course of employment. 3. The next crucial question is regarding the compensation. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has awarded a compensation as if there is a total loss of vision. He had just taken the percentage under the Workmen's Compensation Act and calculated compensation. The materials are lacking to find out whether there is a total loss of the left eye vision and it is a matter MFA NO.865/02 3 that has to be established before applying the table under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore the said factor requires interference. 4. I set aside the order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and remand the case for the limited purpose of finding out whether there is a loss of vision on the left eye and that to calculate the percentage of disability and the entitlement of compensation under the Act. Parties are at liberty to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 1.7.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MFA NO.865/02 4 MFA NO.865/02 5