IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 3 of 2006() ----------------------- ICA.31/2001 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT ----------------------------------- PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.KUMARAN, KUTTICHIRA VELIYIL HOUSE, MARARIKULAM NORTH, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTY: -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I.CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, N.S.ROUND, THRISSUR. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, PERIPATETIC MEDICAL BOARD, SOUTH ZONE, E.S.I.C.HOSPITAL, K.K.NAGAR, CHENNAI-78. 3. K.N.PREMANANDAN, KURATHUPARAMBU HOUSE, PATHIRAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. FOR R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vkm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- Ins. Appeal No. 3 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha, in I.C.A. No.31/01. The appellant sustained injuries on account of a fall from a coconut tree and he had sustained compressed fracture of the L1 vertebra. The Medical Board fixed his permanent disability at 40%. It is against that decision the matter was taken up before the Insurance Court. The Employees' Insurance Court had considered the matter especially the avocation of a tree climber and therefore enhanced the disability on the basis of the loss of earning capacity to 60%. The decisions under the Workmen's Compensation Act would reveal that it is not the particular disability to a particular work that has to be taken but the loss of earning capacity has to be calculated on the basis of all work one is capable of doing. The court has taken a correct view considering the fact that the toddy tapper has sustained a fracture of the vertebra and it may cause him serious difficulties to continue with the avocation. Under such circumstances, the court Ins. Appeal No.3/06 2 fixed the disability at 60% and passed the judgment. I find the court has been very reasonable in fixing the disability and it does not call for any interference. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps Ins. Appeal No.3/06 3