IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 MFA.No. 10 of 2007(A) --------------------- WCC.418/2002 of W.C.C.,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT/IST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY ---------------------------------------------------- 1. HONEY, S/O.SAHADEVAN, THOPPIL HOUSE, PUTHANKADU, P.O.VETTUKADU, THRISSUR. 2. T.S.BIJU, S/O.SAHADEVAN, DO. ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR FOR R.1 SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR FOR R.1 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This Appeal is dismissed for default. (sd/-) (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) 23/09/2010 (sd/-) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) // True Copy// PA to Judge K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- M.F.A.(W.C.Act) NO. 10 OF 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January,2007 O R D E R The amount claimed by the first respondent before the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is Rs.4,48,800/-. The court below awarded Rs.56,155/-. This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the order passed by the court below. A defect was noted by the registry that jurisdiction valuation is not correct. It was replied by the counsel for the appellant stating that the amount awarded is below Rs.One lakh and therefore, the appeal lies before the Single Bench. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for deciding the jurisdiction, the amount awarded is the relevant factor. The counsel also relied on Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and also the decision in Ajesh Alex v. John (2006(4) KLT 828). Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act M.F.A.(W.C.ACT) NO. 10 OF 2007 :: 2 :: provides that no appeal would lie if the amount in dispute is below Rs.10,000/-. In Ajesh Alex v. John, what is held is that in reckoning the amount in dispute, interest on the amount awarded also should be taken note of. The counsel also submitted that fixed court fee is provided under Schedule II Article 3(iii) (A)(1)(a) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and, therefore, the valuation is irrelevant. 3. The jurisdiction of the Single Judge under Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act is limited to a case involving valuation of Rs.One lakh. If the valuation is above Rs.One lakh, the appeal has to be heard by a Division Bench. Valuation for the purpose of appeal is the valuation of the suit or other proceedings. It is true that for the purpose of computing the court fee, the amount awarded is relevant. To determine the jurisdiction, what is relevant is the valuation of the suit or other proceedings. The amount decreed or awarded is not the relevant factor in deciding the question of M.F.A.(W.C.ACT) NO. 10 OF 2007 :: 3 :: jurisdiction. Valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and valuation for the purpose of court fee need not be the same in all cases. Since the amount claimed is above Rs.One lakh, I am of the view that the appeal lies to the Division Bench. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------ ------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. OF O R D E R September, 2006 ------------------------