IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 101 of 2007(A)
1. JAYARAJAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PERUCHATHRA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.AHAMMED KOYA @ KOYA,
... Respondent
2. M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.ANAND
For Respondent :SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :19/01/2011
O R D E R
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/