IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 MFA.No. 99 of 2010 -------------------------------- WCC.14/2005 of W.C.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2: 1. THE ESTATE MANAGER, ATHIRAPPALLY ESTATE, (VETTILAPARA ESTATE), KALADY PLANTATION P.O., ALUVA (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 583. 2. PLANTATION CORPORATION KERALA LTD., MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 004, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT / APPLICANT PHILOMINA JOY, W/O.JOY K.V., KURIKKALETH HOUSE, VETTILAPPARA ESTATE, DIVISION NO.B, KALADY PLANTATION P.O., ALUVA (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 583. (Impleaded after 1st applicant Joy K.V.expired on 31-1-2005) ADV. SRI.BIJISH B.TOM SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE SMT.A.KARTHIKA KAIMAL THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.F.A.(W.C.Act) No.99 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of August 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The management has come up in appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 awarding a total sum of Rs.1,22,412/- to its employee for certain injuries sustained by him in the course of his employment. The Commissioner found that the claimant (wife of the respondent herein) was an employee under the management and that the accident had occurred in the course of his employment. The compensation was reckoned keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances available on record. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant takes exception only to the refusal of the Commissioner to give credit to the sum of Rs.30,400 paid by the management to the employee. Learned counsel for the respondent admits that the management had advanced a sum of Rs.30,400 to the workman towards medical expenses. 3. According to the management, the said sum ought to have been deducted under Section 4(2)(i)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1922. But the Commissioner, placing reliance on the provisions contained in Sections 28 and 29 of the Act, repelled the above contention raised by M.F.A.(W.C.Act) No.99 OF 2010 :: 2 :: the management and held that deduction was impermissible. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the above view taken by the Commissioner is wholly unsustainable. 4. We find considerable force in the contention raised by the learned counsel, particularly since the workman admits that he had received the above sum of Rs.30,400/- towards medical expenses while he was undergoing treatment. But it is brought to our notice that the workman is no more. He passed away in the year 2005 and his retiral benefits also have been disbursed already. 5. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a quietus can be given to this issue though we are not concurring with the view taken by the Commissioner. We are not ordering deduction of the amount not only since it is very meager but also since the workman is no more. We make it clear that the view taken by the Commissioner shall not be treated as a precedent. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes