IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 MFA.No. 71 of 2004() -------------------- WCC.103/1999 of COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER), KANNUR .................... APPELLANT: 2ND OPPOSITE PARTY: ------------------------------ THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KALPETTA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB RESPONDENT: APPLICANT: ----------------------- BIJU, S/O. NARAYANAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, ATHIRATUKUNNU P.O., KENICHIRA, WAYANAD. (NO RELIEFS ARE CLAIMED AGAINST THE 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY AND HENCE HE IS NOT MADE A PARTY IN THIS APPEAL). THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/1/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.(W.C.Act) No.71 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The insurer, second opposite party in W.C.C. No.103/1999 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kannur is the appellant. This appeal is filed challenging an order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner by which the appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.80,986/- as compensation to the first respondent. First respondent filed a petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was alleged that he was a workman employed as driver in a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL.12/816 under the first opposite party. It was contended that the vehicle was covered with a valid insurance policy issued by the appellant. It was also contended on 12.7.1998 the first respondent sustained an employment injury and hence he is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.2,15,280/-. First opposite party did not appear and contest. Appellant alone contested. Appellant admitted the coverage of policy. But, it was contended that the first respondent did not sustain any employment injury. Quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed. Deputy Labour Commissioner found that the accident occurred and the first respondent sustained injuries. First respondent produced Ext.A3 occupational disability certificate which shows that he was having 20% disability. Deputy Labour Commissioner accepted the same and fixed the compensation MFA (W.C.Act) No.71/2004 2 taking 20% as the disability. Challenging that finding this appeal is filed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that first respondent did not sustain any serious injury at all. It is submitted that nature of injuries described in the petition would show that the first respondent sustained only minor lacerations and he produced a disability certificate issued by a doctor to the effect that he was having 20% disability. It is averred that it was a bogus certificate. Appellant filed a petition for directing the first respondent to appear before the Medical Board. But the Deputy Labour Commissioner dismissed that petition and accepted Ext.A3 disability certificate even without examining the doctor. In view of the description of the injuries given in the petition, I am also of the view that it is not possible to place reliance on Ext.A3 especially in view of the fact that the doctor who issued the same was not examined. According to me the Deputy Labour Commissioner ought to have allowed the prayer of the appellant and issued a direction to the first respondent to get himself examined by a Medical Board. Since the Deputy Labour Commissioner disposed of the matter without giving an opportunity to the appellant to establish its case, the order under challenge is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. In the result, appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.80,986/- to the first respondent is hereby set aside. Case is remanded. Deputy Labour Commissioner is directed to take W.C.C.No.103/1999 back to file and dispose of MFA (W.C.Act) No.71/2004 3 the same afresh after getting a disability certificate issued by a Medical Board after due examination of the first respondent. I.A.No.1579/2004 in M.F.A.(W.C.Act) No.71/2004 will stand dismissed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks