IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 MFA.No. 177 of 2007() --------------------- WCC.85/2005 of W.C.C., KANNUR .................... APPELLANT: 2ND OPPOSITE PARTY: -------------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT AND THE 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY: -------------------------------------------------- 1. BYJESH P., S/O. PADMANABHAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL, PANANKAV, P.O. CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR. 2. M.P. SURESH BABU, MANTHRAPOIL HOUSE, P.O. CHENDAYADU, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA,JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.F.A.(WCC).No.177 of 2007 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and also the interest directed to be paid. First respondent workman met with an accident during the course of employment. He was a driver by profession. He was employed by second respondent, who was a medical practitioner. The accident, nature of injuries etc. are not disputed. According to the applicant, his monthly income was Rs.4,500/-. The employer also admitted that the first respondent was paid Rs.4,500/-. The Commissioner assessed compensation taking Rs.4,000/- as the monthly income. It is the contention of the appellant that no evidence was adduced to show that he was getting Rs.4,000/- per month. But, in the employer's written statement it was stated that the first respondent was paid Rs.4,500/- per month. Assessment of monthly income is a finding of fact on materials by the Commissioner and therefore, on that ground appeal will not lie. He was a driver by profession, MFA.177/07 2 employed by a medical practitioner and the monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- fixed by the Commissioner is not excessive also. Second contention is that interest was awarded from the date of accident. The Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed & Co. another ( (2007)2 SCC 349) held that interest will be liable only from the date of adjudication, as compensation falls due only on the date of adjudication. This matter was considered by this Court in the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha and others (2007(4) ILR Kerala 77) and held that in the above decision awarding of interest was based on the facts of the particular case. In Mubasir's case (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court relied on a three member decision reported in Maghar Sing v. Jashwant Sing ( (1998)9 SCC 134). In that case interest was awarded from the date of award, ie., 26.7.1984. Further in K.S.E.B v. Valsala ( (1999)8 SCC 254) a three member Bench of the Supreme Court held that the liability to pay compensation falls on the date of accident and not on the date of petition or award and relevant date for determination of the right is the date of accident. In Pratap Narain Singh v. Srinivas (AIR 1976 SC 222) a five member Bench of the Supreme Court held that compensation amount falls due on the date of accident. Therefore, MFA.177/07 3 the interest was granted in this case as provided under Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act and hence we see no ground to interfere with the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.