IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 81 of 2005() -------------------- AGAINST WCC.NO.L63/1994 OF COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER) KOTTAYAM APPELLANT: OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- THOMAS.P.T., MUKKADA HOUSE, NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY C. ETTUKETTIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM. 2. BIJU.P.C., PERUMPAYIL, POTHODU, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS FOR R2 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- M.F.A. No.81 of 2005 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th May, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kottayam, in W.C.C.No.63/1994. The claimant filed an application on the ground that on 4.6.1994, while he was working as a helper in the mixing mill of the appellant, due to the defect of the machine, he met with an accident resulting in a crush injury. It was submitted that he was aged 18 years and was receiving Rs.1375/= as monthly salary, at the time of accident. On the other hand, appellant would contend that he was not his worker and he had only sustained a minor injury and the accident has not taken place during the course of the employment. Before the Workmen's Compensation court, claimant was examined as AW.1 and Exts.A1 to A3 documents were marked. Appellant did not adduce any evidence. The court below has extracted a portion of the evidence given by the claimant to show that he was working under the first respondent. It has also mentioned that he was subjected to cross examination, but nothing was brought out in to MFA No.81 of 2005 2 discredit his evidence. The Court further found that Ext.A1 would indicate that the accident occurred while working in the Fowber grinding machine. Appellant neither entered the box nor tendered any oral or documentary evidence in support of his contentions, and, therefore, the court accepted the plea of the claimant and found that he was an employee under the appellant, and that the accident had taken place in the course of employment. So far as the compensation is concerned, while considering Issue No.4, the court below found that it was a scheduled injury, and therefore, fixed the loss of earning capacity at 40%, took an income as Rs.1000/=, applied the appropriate index multiplier and calculated the compensation. A perusal of the entire matter would show that these are all based on solid finding of fact, which cannot be said to be perverse or irregular or illegal. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law involved in the matter, much less any error committed by the Commissioner. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit, and the same is dismissed. No costs. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE nj.