IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 MFA.No. 177 of 2008 ----------------------------- W.C.C. NO.113/2005 OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER,KANNUR .................... APPELLANTS/ OPPOSITE PARTY: ------------------------------------------------ MANAGING PARTNER, CANNANORE HANDLOOM EXPORTS, P.O.CHOVVA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH, ADV. SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL. RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT: ---------------------------------------- SIGNA.K., D/O.SURENDRAN, KULANGARA MADATHIL HOUSE, PODUVACHERY P.O., THALAVIL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. M.V. AMARESAN. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. ------------------------------- M.F.A.(W.C.C.)NO.177 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Respondent in this case while cleaning the fibre machine, her right hand accidentally slipped between the wheels and sustained crush injuries to her hand resulting in fracture of the index finger and middle finger. She was treated as inpatient till 7.11.2004 and she was discharged from the hospital without complete cure. She had undergone three months treatment. She claimed compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. According to her, she was getting Rs.3,000/- as monthly wages. The Medical Board certified that her occupational disability is 20%. Commissioner has therefore awarded compensation for 20% loss of earning capacity. Mainly two contentions are raised. First contention is that 20% loss of earning capacity was on the high side. Only two fingers were fractured apart from the injuries on the hand and 20% loss of MFA.177/08 2 earning capacity ought not have been awarded. Injuries suffered by her is not a scheduled injury as there is no amputation. Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, if the injury is not a scheduled injury, Commissioner is bound to assess the loss of earning capacity as assessed by the competent Medical Practitioner. Here the medical certificate issued by the Medical Board, Kannur certified that there is 20% occupational disability. Commissioner accepted the same and granted compensation. Hence we see no ground to interfere in the same. Second contention is that, she, being a contractual worker, is engaged whenever work is necessary, Rs.3,000/- fixed as monthly income was not correct. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, casual employee employed in the business is also covered and income has to be calculated as provided under Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The particulars of the wages actually paid ought have been given by the employer. The authenticative documents were not produced and the alleged contractor was also not examined. It is contended by the appellant that main contention is MFA.177/08 3 regarding the loss of earning capacity fixed and the matter should be remanded. We are of the opinion that without any substance, case cannot be remanded prolonging the agony of an injured worker as accident occurred in the year 2004. She has not received any compensation. Hence she cannot be dragged again to the Commissioner engaging the service of a lawyer also. No substantial question of law arises so as to maintain the appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE prp