IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 186 of 2008()
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ABDULLA, S/O. KUNHAMMED BOVIKANA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :26/11/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 186 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Kannur in
W.C.C.58/06. The claimant is a auto rickshaw driver by
profession sustained injuries in a road accident. The Doctor
certified his disability at 10% and the Commissioner has
awarded a total compensation of Rs.42,130/-. It is against
that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the insurance company
strongly contends that the income taken by the
Commissioner is wrong and so also the interest awarded is
incorrect. So far as the income is concerned it is a question
of fact. The claimant was examined and he had deposed
about his income. He is a 45 year old man and an auto
rickshaw driver by profession. Under such circumstances one
cannot find fault with the Commissioner for fixing the income
at Rs.4,000/- per month. There is no indication of any
M.A.C.A. NO. 186 OF 2008
-:2:-
contra suggestion or other evidence to disbelieve that factor.
Being a question of fact a substantial question of law cannot
be raised on that point.
The second question is regarding the interest. Relying
upon the decision reported in National Insurance Co. v.
Mubasir Ahmed (2007 AIR SCW 1265) it is contended
that interest is only due from the date of award. A Division
Bench of this Court in the decision reported in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Rekha 2007 (4) KLT 386 considered
this question and held that there is a larger Bench decision of
the Supreme Court reported in Pratap NarainSingh Deo v.
Shrinivas Sabata (AIR 1976 SC 222) which holds that
interest is due from the date of accident. The Division Bench
also held that when there is a conflict between the decisions
of the Supreme Court, decision of the larger Bench will
prevail. The Division Bench held that the entitlement is from
the date of accident. So I do not find any substantial
question of law involved in this appeal and therefore the MFA
is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-