IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 MFA.No. 101 of 2007(A) -------------------------------- WCC.342/1998 of COMMISSIOER FOR WORKMES'S COMPENSATION,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT: ------------------------------------------ JAYARAJAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PERUCHATHRA HOUSE, MARUTHANGAD, NALLAMATHANNI P.O., NILAMBUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): OPP. PARTIES: -------------------------------------------------- 1. M.AHAMMED KOYA @ KOYA, S/O.MAYIM, MARUKUNNU HOUSE, P.O.NALLAMTHANNI, NILAMBUR. 2. M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KORAMBAYIL ARCADE, PANDIKKAD ROAD, MANJERI. R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** M.F.A(WCC) No.101 of 2007-A ***************************** Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is directed against the award passed by the Commissioner directing payment of an amount of Rs.4,892/- as compensation to the appellant. We have taken an indulgent view and have today condoned the long delay of 983 days in filing the appeal. To justify admission of an appeal under Section 30 of the Act, this Court is to be satisfied that a substantial question of law arises for determination in the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant was requested to explain the nature of the substantial question of law which the appellant wants to raise for consideration in this case. The court below has accepted that employment injury was suffered by the appellant. The court found that he was entitled for compensation. His monthly income was reckoned at the maximum permissible at the M.F.A(WCC) No.101 of 2007-A 2 relevant time - of Rs.2,00/- per mensem. His age as born out by Ext.A9 produced by him was accepted - 32 years. The relevant factor was correctly reckoned as 203.85. On the above aspects no dispute is raised. The extent of reduction in earning capacity was reckoned as 2%. This was so done accepting and acting upon Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Manjeri, to whom the Commissioner had sent the appellant/applicant for assessment of the reduction in earning capacity. Except the appellant who was examined as AW1, no other witness was examined. 2. The only ground of challenge is that the extent of reduction in earning capacity reckoned by the Medical Board is not correct. How is it incorrect? Why is it said that it is incorrect? No worthwhile contentions are raised at all. The assessment of the extent of earning capacity is incorrect, it is urged. There is not a semblance of evidence adduced before the Commissioner to challenge Ext.X1. Except the assertion of the appellant/applicant as AW1, no better evidence was made available. The appellant was employed as a driver of an autorickshaw. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, we are satisfied that there is no substantial question of M.F.A(WCC) No.101 of 2007-A 3 law arising for consideration in this appeal. No worthwhile attempt is made and no materials are placed before court to come to any different conclusion than the one reached by the Medical Board in Ext.X1 certificate issued by it. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that this appeal does not merit admission. 3. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limine. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ M.F.A(WCC) No.101 of 2007-A 4 R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** C.M.Appl.No.1139 of 2007 in M.F.A(WCC) No.101 of 2007-A ***************************** Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 ORDER BASANT, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 953 days in filing an appeal against an award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The delay is huge - 953 days. The application is opposed. The only reason urged is that the petitioner was facing financial difficulties. The affidavit filed by the petitioner does not reveal any other reason. 2. We are satisfied that sufficient reasons have not been shown to justify the prayer for condonation of the huge and enormous delay of 953 days. However, we take note of the fact M.F.A(WCC) No.101 of 2007-A 5 that the appellant is the claimant who had suffered employment injury. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the admission of the appeal. We are proceeding to dispose of the appeal straightaway. We do, in these circumstances, take a lenient view. Petition is allowed. Delay is condoned. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/