IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 MFA.No. 117 of 2008() ------------------- WCC.92/94 OF COMMISSIONR FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER), ERNAKULAM .............. APPELLANT / APPLICANT: -------------------------------------- A.M.GEORGE, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 64 YEARS, AMBATTU KURISWINKAL VEETTIL, NOW RESIDING AT KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-7. BY ADVS. SRI.K.L.JOSEPH SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI. V.V. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- MFA No.117 of 2008-E ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The appellant has come to this Court with this appeal complaining that the reduction in earning capacity for computing the compensation was reckoned under Section-4 of the Employees' Compensation Act only at 50% whereas he is really entitled for 100% compensation. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of the report of the Medical Board that he has suffered 100% reduction in earning capacity, though physical disability was assessed by the Medical Board only at 50%. The Commissioner went wrong in assuming that the physical disability and the reduction in earning capacity are the same; this is the contention urged. 2. We have been taken through law on the point in detail. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that following decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v Srinivas Sabata and another M.F.ANo.117/2008 2 (1976(1) SCC 289), K.Janardhanan v United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and another (2008(2) KLT 995 SC) and S.Suresh v Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another [(2010) 13 SCC 777], 100% should have been reckoned as the percentage reduction of earning capacity. But, we note that the appellant has already been awarded the full amount, that is Rs.78,235/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident as compensation under Section 4(b). There is no challenge by the Insurance Company against that direction. Going by Section 4(b) as it stood on the date of the accident i.e.22.8.1992, the appellant/claimant is entitled to computation of compensation as shown below: Where permanent total disablement results from the injury an amount equal to fifty percent of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor Or an amount of twenty four thousand rupees whichever is more; 3. We note that the Commissioner for Workmen's M.F.ANo.117/2008 3 Compensation both in the order impugned as well as the earlier order dated 31.3.1999 has followed the computation under Section 4(b) and awarded an amount of Rs.78,235/- as per the following computation. 1000 X 50/100 X 156.47 = 78,235.00 4. This means that the challenge in this appeal is without merit and cannot be accepted as the entire amount payable by way of compensation (even when the claimant is held to have suffered total permanent disablement) has already been paid to the appellant under the impugned order (and even the earlier order dated 31.3.2011). 5. The appellant is therefore not entitled to any relief. This appeal is hence dismissed. SD/- R.BASANT JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/