IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 77 of 2004(A) ------------------------------- WCC.67/1998 OF COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER), ERNAKULAM .................................... APPELLANT: 3RD OPPOSITE PARTY --------------------------------------------------- KARUKAPARAMBIL CONSTRUCTIONS, VYTTILA, COCHIN-19, REP.BY ITS PARTNER SRI.K.G.THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.A.V.THOMAS SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS/OPPOSITE PARTY NOS.1 & 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MUTHAIYA S., KIZHAKOTTAIYUR EAST STREET, KOTTAIYUR POST, VIRUDHUNAGAR (VIA) KAMARAJAPURAM, TAMILNADU. 2. GURUVAMMAL M., KIZHAKOTTAIYUR EAST STREET, KOTTAIYUR POST, VIRUDHUNAGAR (VIA), KAMARAJAPURAM, THAMILNADU. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., RAVIPURAM BRANCH, VALLAMATTOM ESTATE, COCHIN 15 4. K.G.THOMAS & CO., CONTRACTORS, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN -20. 5. THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER) KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY FOR R3 SMT.K.PREETHA JOHN FOR R1 & R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.T.K. MOHANAN THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. NO. 77 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in W.C.C. 67/98 of Ernakulam. It was an application filed for compensation on account of the death of one Arul Selvem who died in a road accident arising out and in the course of the employment. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded a total amount of Rs.2,02,666/- and directed the insurance company as per its liability to pay Rs.1,73,713/- and the balance amount of Rs.28,953/- with 12% from 15.4.96 to 9.11.03 is ordered to be paid by the present appellant. It is against that decision the present appeal is filed. 2. It is a settled principle that unless there is substantial question of law these types of appeals cannot be entertained. It is made very clear under the proviso to Rule 1 of Section 30 that no appeal shall lie against any order unless substantial question of is involved in the appeal. Here M.F.A. 77 OF 2004 -:2:- the question for consideration is only regarding the actual wages of the deceased Abdul Selvam and oath is the only form of evidence. The claimant would depose that the wages was Rs.100/- whereas the appellant's witness would depose that it was only Rs.60/-. The Court below found that there is no correct evidence in the form of a document to establish the actual wages and therefore it fixed it at Rs.70/- and calculated the compensation. The arrival of wages by the Court is on evaluation of the evidence and materials available which is a question of fact. When such a question of fact has been decided by the Court, unless there is gross perversity, one cannot raise a substantial question of law on that ground for consideration. Therefore I find there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal and further held that I cannot find any perversity or irregularity in the finding which requires interference at the hands of this Court. Therefore, the MFA lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-