IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 MFA.No. 152 of 2006(A) --------------------- W.C.C.NO.180/2000 DT.18.10.05 IN THE COURT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER), THRISSUR APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT ----------------------- SIVADASAN, S/O.PAPPAN, PARAPPILLI HOUSE, ALAGAPPA NAGAR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU RESPONDENT(S): OPPOSITE PARTIES ------------------------------- 1. VASANTHY SUDHAKARAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, ARADHANA, POOKODE P.O., VATTANAMTHARA, THRISSUR. 2. MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS FOR R1 SRI.T.G.LELLULAL FOR R1 SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA FOR R2 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.F.A No.152 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is the appellant before us. He claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He is a car driver by profession. He was aged 29 years at the time of his accident. He claimed to earn an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. The accident took place on 01.12.1992. The Commissioner accepted the claim, but reckoned his monthly income only at Rs.1,000/- per mensem. Physical disability was ascertained and determined by a qualified medical practitioner examined as AW2 at 5%. But the doctor opined that reduction in earning capacity is 15%. The Commissioner after perusing the certificate and the oral evidence of AW2, came to the conclusion that reduction in earning capacity can be reckoned only at 12%. The monthly income, the Commissioner held, can be reckoned only at Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly compensation was worked out and it was held that the appellant is entitled for an amount of M.F.A No.152 of 2006 2 Rs.12,595.20 as compensation. A direction was issued to pay interest @ 12% per annum. It was directed that such payment need be made only from the date of the application, ie. 27.06.2000. The accident had allegedly taken place on 01.12.1992. 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. An appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is maintainable only if a substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Commissioner erred on 3 aspects in reckoning Rs.1,000/- as the monthly income, 12% as the reduction in earning capacity and in directing payment of interest only from the date of the application and not the date of the accident. Under Section 4A of the Act, compensation is liable to be paid within one month from the date it falls due. It is trite now after the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed [2007(3) KLT 26 (SC)] that such amount is to be paid from the date of adjudication. The date of the award must certainly relate back to the date of the petition and therefore the only question will be whether interest is payable with effect from the date of the petition or the date of the M.F.A No.152 of 2006 3 accident. In a case like the instant one where the appellant was at default for not filing the claim within time, we are not persuaded to agree that any such crucial error in law has been committed by the Commissioner in directing payment of interest from the date of the petition. We are not, in these circumstances, satisfied that any such substantial question of law arises or even that any error has been committed by the Commissioner to justify invocation of the appellate jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 3. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-