IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 103 of 2007() ------------------------------ WCC.200/2001 of COMMISSIONER FORWORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KOZHIKODE(DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER). .................... APPELLANT: APPLICANT ------------------- VASU, S/O. RARUNNI, MUTHEDATHU HOUSE, KANNAMVETTIKKAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.KAMALA MENON RESPONDENTS: OPPOSITE PARTIES -------------------------- 1. K.SAJEEVAN, S/O. APPU, POOCHAT HOUSE, P.O.FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. 2. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH - R2 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MFA No.103 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 16th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kozhikode in W.C.No.200 of 2001. The applicant sustained injuries in an accident while he was working as auto driver. The document would show that he had sustained injury on the head. Since no documents were produced to show that he had suffered permanent disability as contemplated under Section 4(1)(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act the court proceeded under Section 4(1)(d) of the said Act. The Commissioner held that the claimant was treated in the hospital as an inpatient for a period of 4 days. He further held that due to the fractures and other injuries the claimant might have abstained from his avocation for a period of 4 months. Then applying the principle of calculation of compensation under Section 4(1)(d), taking the maximum salary as Rs.4,000/-, the court below had arrived at a compensation of Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be held that the Workmen's Compensation Court has erred in fixing the compensation with the materials available on MFA 103/2007 -:2:- record. Under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, when the materials on record reveal that the compensation has been fixed correctly. I cannot hold that there is a perverse approach which will entail this court to raise a substantial question of law. There is no substantial question of law involved and therefore the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-