IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 MFA.No. 171 of 2008() ------------------------------ WCC.298/2002 OF W.C.C.,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY: --------------------------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT/1ST OPPOSITE PARTY: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED BASHEER S/O.MOIDEEN KUNJU, THUYYIL HOUSE, KERIKODE. 2. ALEYAMMA VARGHESE, W/O.VARGHESE KIZHAKKEL HOUSE, ALACODE P.O., ANCHIRI, THODUPUZHA. BY THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.F.A. NO.171/2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO.2972 OF 2008 IN M.F.A. NO.171 OF 2008. DISMISSED 04/11/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. NO. 171 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Thrissur in W.C.C.298/02. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident on 17.6.99 and claimed a compensation of Rs.2,31,768/-. The petition was filed in the year 2002. The Compensation Commissioner granted a sum of Rs.39,197/- with a direction to pay interest at the rate of 12% from 17.6.99 till deposit. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company. The learned counsel very strongly contends before me that the injury sustained in the accident were simple in nature and therefore the Commissioner should not have accepted the disability certificate issued either by the Doctor or by the Medical Board. He would submit that there was no serious injuries. M.F.A. NO. 171 OF 2008 -:2:- 3. Now, so far as the assessment of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned the loss of earning capacity is the criteria. The Doctor who issued the certificate of 25% was examined as AW2. It was strongly challenged by the insurance company. The insurance company moved an application for examination by a Medical Board. It was allowed by the Court. The Medical Board examined the claimant and fixed his permanent disability at 9% and loss of earning capacity at 17%. It is based on that certificate the award has been passed by the Commissioner. Now, the learned counsel would submit that the Commissioner should not have blindly accepted the certificate of the Medical Board. I am in disagreement with that argument. The Medical Board is an expert body and that is why the law also envisages that assessment by the Medical expert has to be brought so as to assess the loss of earning capacity. Suppose one was dissatisfied with the certificate issued by the Medical Board then steps should have been taken to adduce expert evidence to contradict the M.F.A. NO. 171 OF 2008 -:3:- materials available before the Commissioner. It is a well settled principle that Courts are not experts on medical lines and they assess the medical disability with the help of experts thereby becoming expert of experts. Without moving in that direction now it cannot be entertained at this stage to reassess the whole matter. So on that point I disagree with the learned submission made by the counsel. So far as the interest aspect is concerned it is settled by a Division Bench of this Court referring to a larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court that the interest must be from the date of accident. But when there is an inordinate delay in filing the application it shall not be a ground to encash the negligence of the claimant by awarding interest from the date of accident. So when a Court or Commissioner is convinced about the delay then I feel the interest can be said to be commenced only from the date of petition. In this case there is no reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the application. Therefore the appeal is disposed of with the only modification that the date of commencement of interest shall M.F.A. NO. 171 OF 2008 -:4:- be from the date of filing of the application and not from the date of accident. On all other aspects the order of the Compensation Commissioner stands confirmed. Whether there is any difference in interest has to be worked out and if any excess deposit had been made, it shall be reimbursed to the insurance company. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-