IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 MFA.No. 654 of 2003() --------------------- WCC.120/2001 of W.C.C.,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT IN WCC. ------------------------------- BABU, S/O.SANKARAN, MATTATHIL HOUSE, PERAMBRA P.O. MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): OPPOSITE PARTIES. -------------------------------- 1. SATHEESAN, THEKKOOT HOUSE, ULUMBATHUKUNNU, NELLAYI P.O. 2. MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., TANA, IRINJALAKUDA. ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FOR R2 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2008, ALONG WITH MFA NO. 13 OF 2004 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.F.A.(WC Act) No. 654 OF 2003& 13 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Connected appeals filed, one by the claimant and the other by the Insurance Company, are against the same award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, directing the insurer to pay compensation for the loss sustained by the claimant, who at the time of the accident, was a driver of an autorikshaw. We have heard counsel appearing for both sides and have also gone through the award. While the prayer in the appeal filed by the claimant is for enhancement of compensation by fixing higher percentage of disability and consequent loss of earning capacity, the claim of the insurance company is that their request to refer the claimant for examination by the Medical Board was wrongly rejected and the medical certificate produced was unreliable. We find that the same contentions were raised before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and he found that the doctor who issued medical certificate was a qualified medical officer and therefore his evidence was acted upon by the Commissioner. Even 2 though claimant sustained only superficial injury, going by the persistent complaints raised by him before the doctor, which are recorded by him, we do not think there is anything wrong in Commissioner accepting the medical evidence and granting compensation by fixing disability at 8% and loss of earning capacity at 12%. In fact it is seen from the medical report that claimant is advised not to engage himself as driver which could probably be on account of persistent problems stated by the claimant. We do not find any justification to refer the claimant at this distance of time to a Medical Board for another report which will only delay and protract the proceedings. At the same time, we do not find any ground to increase the compensation, as adequate compensation was granted by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner based on medical report. Consequently both the appeals are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk 3