IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 MFA.No. 138 of 2007(D) ------------------------------ WCC.282/2002 of W.C.C.,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY : -------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THRISSUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE,OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT/APPLICANT : -------------------------------- JOY P.R, S/O. RAPPAI, MUTTICHOOKKARAN HOUSE, ANCHERY PO THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MFA.No. 138 of 2007(D) ORDER ON I.A.NO.1787 OF 2007 IN M.F.A.NO.138 OF 2007 DISMISSED 29.10.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.F.A.(W.C.C.)No. 138 OF 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Thrissur in W.C.C.No.282/2002. The applicant before the said Commissioner was an Autorickshaw driver who sustained fracture on the neck of the fibula and laceration on the left knee. The Commissioner took the income at Rs. 3,000/- and disability at 5% and calculated the compensation. Loss of earning capacity though certified by the doctor at 21% has been taken as only as 5% and therefore one cannot find that is on the higher side. So far as the income is concerned, an autorickshaw driver by profession in the year 2002 would have annual income of atleast Rs. 100/- per day. Therefore one cannot find fault for taking income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. That does not call for any interference. Lastly on the question of interest after considering Larger Bench decision of the Apex Court, the Division bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha 2007(4) KLT 386 held that the entitlement of interest is from the date of accident. So it also does not call for any interference. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm