IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MFA.No. 49 of 2006() -------------------------- WCC.205/2001 of W.C.C.,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND OPPOSITE PARTY --------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUNICIPAL BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARAVOOR REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY ADVS. SRI.M.S.PATTALI SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT AND IST OPPOSITE PARTY ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PAUL, S/O.OUSEPH, RESIDING AT KALLALI HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA P.O., KOLANY ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. K.F.JOBY, KATTIKKARAN HOUSE, HOLY ANGELS ROAD, OLLUR, THRISSUR. R1 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ORDER ON I.A. 469/2006 IN M.F.A. NO. 49/2006 DISMISSED 02/12/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. NO. 49 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Thrissur in W.C.C. 205/01. The applicant, a workmen employed, sustained injuries in a road accident as a result of which he had extensive cornea seleral penetrating injury and lens appeared ruptured and dislocated. There was a loss of vision of right eye as well. He was aged 39 years. The Workmen's compensation Commissioner fixed his income at Rs.3,000/- age at 39, loss of earning capacity at 30% in the light of the schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act and granted interest from the date of accident. It is challenging M.F.A.. 49 OF 2006 -:2:- all these findings the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. So far as the employer-employee relationship is concerned it is a factual finding that has become conclusive. So far as the income is concerned though the claimant made a claim of Rs.4,000/- the Court was pleased to grant only Rs.3,000/- as the income and the medical records clearly reveal that he had lost the vision of one eye completely and therefore the Commissioner took into consideration schedule No.1 of part II item 26 of the Workmen's Compensation Act to find out the loss of vision and fixed the loss of earning capacity at 30%. it is perfectly in accordance with law and that also does not call for any interference. 3. Lastly the question of interest. Further it is contended that the interest can be only given from the date of notice and not from M.F.A.. 49 OF 2006 -:3:- the date of accident. This issue has been the subject matter of discussion and decisions and in the decision reported in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata (AIR 1976 SC 222) the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the entitlement is from the date of accident. Subsequently a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it can be from the date of award. Then these two matters again came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rekha 2007 (4) KLT 386. The Division Bench held that when there is a conflict between a decision of a Constitution Bench and a Division Bench, the ruling of the Constitution Bench will prevail and therefore allowed interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident. This has been followed by another Division Bench of this Court reported in 2009 (1) KLT 825 Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. M.F.A.. 49 OF 2006 -:4:- Ashraf. Further the Himachal Pradesh High Court also followed the said decision reported in New India Assurance Company v. Budh Ram and another(2009(4) TAC 614)(HP) wherein also the dictum in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rekha 2007 (4) KLT 386 has been followed. Therefore from the pronouncements available it has to be held that the entitlement is from the date of accident and so that also cannot be found fault with. So on a consideration of the entire materials I hold that the appeal is devoid of merits and therefore the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-