IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 MFA.No. 147 of 2006 ---------------------------- WCC.129/1999 of THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER),THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ SUDEVAN, S/O.APPUNNU, KOLAYAKAD HOUSE, KANNAMPRA VILLAGE, MANNAPRA.P.O, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. V.S.KARUPPASWAMY, S/O.NATRAJ GOUNDER, DOOR NO.221, GOVINDAPURAM.P.O, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- MFA No.147 of 2006 ----------------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Appellant is the applicant in a proceedings under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. He has filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation ordered by the Commissioner. The substantial questions of law raised in the memorandum of appeal read as under: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, is the court below justified in assessing the monthly wages of the appellant? 2. Is the Court below justified in holding that the appellant was earning Rs.2000/- only per month in spite of his statements on oath that he was earning Rs.6000/- per month? 3. Is the court below justified in insisting on documentary evidence regarding salary since the oral evidence of the applicant is not sufficiently rebutted? 4. Can courts exercising jurisdiction conferred by welfare statutes insist on technicalities and deny adequate compensation, remaining alien to ground realities?” 2. This is a case where admittedly the accident took MFA No.147 of 2006 -2- place on 8.9.1997 when the appellant was on duty as a Driver. He is alleged to have suffered the following disabilities going by Ext.A6 disability certificate. “1. Malunited fracture of the lower third of left femur. 2. Shortening left thigh 1.5 cms. 3. Painful limping left lower limb. 4. Ankylosis of the left knee (only 70 of movement is possible in the knee joint). 5. He cannot squat. 6. Stiffness and pain of left knee joint. 7. He cannot climb steps.” The Commissioner has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.88,402/-. Commissioner took the wages as Rs.2,000/-. The loss of earning capacity was determined at 40%. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the insurer. Apparently, the crux of the complaint appears to be that the wages was taken at Rs.2,000/- per month. On the date of accident according to the appellant, he was drawing Rs.6,000/-. We would think that is besides the point. As per the law, as on the date of accident the maximum amount that could have been taken was Rs.2,000/- per month and that has been taken by the Commissioner. Therefore, absolutely no question of law can possibly arise with regard to the said aspect MFA No.147 of 2006 -3- and we reject the said contention. We notice that the appellant has also been awarded compensation on the basis of loss of earing capacity determined at 40%. Having regard to the totality of facts we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS