IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 329 of 2008() -------------------- : APPELLANT -------------------------- M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. CITY BRANCH NO.2, 2ND FLOOR, SEEMA TOWERS MAVOOR ROAD, CALICUT-673 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DY. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. RAJIKUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN MARAR MANNARATH HOUSE, KINALOOR AMSOM MUNDAKKARA DESOM, P.O.KINLOOR, VIA. BALUSSERY 2. MOHAMMED KOYA E., EDACHALIL HOUSE NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & A.K.BASHEER, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RP No.329 of 2008 in MFA No.397 of 2001 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Order Balakrishnan Nair, J. This is a review filed by the Insurance Company to review the judgment in MFA No.397 of 2001. The claimant before the Workmen's Compensation Commission was the Cleaner of a lorry. He sustained injuries during the course of his employment and his left leg was amputated below the knee. The Commissioner, taking note of the above fact, assessed the loss of his earning capacity as 100% and fixed the compensation as Rs.2,63,940/-. The Insurance Company filed an appeal, contending that for amputation of one leg below the knee, the percentage of loss of earning capacity under the Workmen's Compensation Act was only 40%. But, this court noticed that the claimant being a Cleaner, practically, he will not be able to do any work after the amputation of one leg. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner was upheld. This RP is filed stating that as a result of the amputation of one leg below the knee, the loss of earning capacity is only 40% as per the schedule of the Act. So the award of compensation taking the loss of earning capacity as RP 329/08 2 100% is an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, is liable to be reviewed. But, we notice that the said contention of the Insurance Company was considered by this court while dismissing the MFA. It may be a wrong decision. If that be so, the remedy of the Insurance Company is to challenge that decision before the Apex Court. Since this court noticing the very same contention of the Insurance Company took a decision to dismiss the appeal, this application for review of that judgment is not maintainable. Accordingly, the RP is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE 04.04.2008 A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE sta RP 329/08 3