IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 MFA.No. 124 of 2006() --------------------- WCC.83/1999 of W.C.C.,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): OPPOSITE PARTY ---------------------------- M/S.HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., MOOPLY ESTATE, VARANDRAPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY MR.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT ------------------------ KARTHU, CHEMPUCHIRA DESOM POST, METTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.VINOD CHANDRAN THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.6.2009 , THE COURT ON 15/06/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` M.F.A.(W.C.C.) No. 124 OF 2006 F ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Joseph, J. The appellant impugns the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.56,932/- on account of the injury suffered by the respondent. The Commissioner found that the respondent was an employee of the appellant and was awarded compensation and interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the accident. The question of law raised is as to whether the appellant is liable in the light of the accident. 2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant cannot be called upon to pay interest from the date of the accident. He would submit that the injury in the instant case is not a scheduled injury. This means, according to the appellant, that the disability as also the loss of earning capacity must be assessed as contemplated in MFA.124/06 : 2 : section 4(1)(c)(ii). It is only when the assessment is made it could be said that there is liability, he contends. He further points out that the respondent did not appear before medical board. He relies on the decision of the apex court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata and another [1976 (1) SCC 289] which is followed by the Division Bench decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rekha [2007 (4) KLT 386]. He points out that the decision of the Apex court was dealing with the case of scheduled injury. Learned counsel for the appellant would also rely on the decision of a Bench of two judges of the apex court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and another [2008 (1) LLN 422] for contending that the Commissioner has acted illegally in awarding interest from the date of the accident. Learned counsel for the respondent would join the issue with the appellant and contend that it is not correct to say that the respondent did not appear before the medical board. The counsel for the respondent submits that there was no motion by the appellant seeking appearance of the respondent before the medical board. Learned counsel for the appellant pressed before MFA.124/06 : 3 : us the question of law No.(iv). We notice that a Bench of this court in the decision reported in 2007 (4) KLT 386 had occasion to notice the difference of views between the decisions of the apex court. Therein, the court took the view that when there is conflict between the decisions of the Supreme court, decision of the larger Bench will prevail. It is also noticed that in the facts of the case in the decision aforesaid the Division Bench of this court was also dealing with the case where the injury was not a scheduled injury. Therefore, the Division Bench in the said case proceeded to take the view that the employer can be called upon to pay interest from the date of the accident. This decision has been followed by a Bench of this court in 2009 (1) KLT. Here the appellant is the employer. Therefore, we would think that there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) aks