IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 MFA.No. 187 of 2004() --------------------- WCC.28/2002 of WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COURT.,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ----------- K.K.DEEPA, AGED 25, D/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY, KANJIRATHUMMOTTIL HOUSE, KAVAKKAD P.O., AYAVANA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENTS: OPPOSITE PARTIES ------------- 1. MR.SALAM, MANAGER, MUGAL WOOD INDUSTRIES, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., POONUR. 2. MR.PAREED, PARTNER, MUGAL WOOD INDUSTRIES, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., POONUR. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY, PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, ST.JOSEPH'S BUIDLING, A.M.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.A.C.DEVY THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- M.F.A. (WCC) No.187 OF 2004 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th February, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner in W.C.C.No.28/2002, on the file of the Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Ernakulam, who sustained an employment injury, has filed this appeal, complaining inadequacy of compensation awarded to her. Petitioner was working as a worker in the business establishment run by respondents 1 and 2. On 8.3.2001, she sustained an injury. She claimed compensation of Rs.80,290/=, contending that her monthly salary was Rs.2015/= and she was aged 22 years. The Deputy Labour Commissioner considering the age of the petitioner and the fact that she had a disability of 30%, but took the wages of the appellant as Rs.40/= per day, and awarded the compensation of Rs.41,691/=. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, appellant herself has filed this appeal. 2. The only question arising for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to get any additional compensation. MFA No.187/2004 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the salary of the appellant ought to have been fixed as Rs.2000/= per month, as she was earning a monthly income of Rs.2015/= per month. It is true that respondents 1 and 2 did not produce any documents. 3rd respondent is the Insurer. He has filed a statement contending that the monthly wages of the petitioner was below Rs.1000/=. It was also stated that Insurer had examined the Wages Register of the employer and found that the appellant was drawing less than Rs.1000/= per month. So, the Deputy Labour Commissioner took the salary of the appellant as Rs.1040/=. The appellant gave oral evidence. According to her, she was getting Rs.65/= per day. Even admitting the contention of the petitioner that she was getting Rs.65/= per day, the wages will come to Rs.1690/=. Respondents 1 and 2 have examined another cutter working in the saw mill as DW.2. He deposed that he is getting more salary than the appellant. His wages per day was Rs.55/=, and the appellant was paid Rs.40/= per day. So, accepting the evidence on record, the MFA No.187/2004 3 Commissioner found that the salary of the appellant is taken as Rs.1040/=. I am of the view that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is only to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.