IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 163 of 2006()
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.RAMAN,
... Respondent
2. AHAMMED HAJI.E.K., S/O.CHEKKU,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :06/11/2006
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & M.N.KRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------------
M.F.A.(W.C.C.)NO.163 OF 2006
------------------------------
Dated 6th November, 2006
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J
.
First respondent head load worker met with an
accident by which he sustained the following injuries:
“(a) Head injury.
(b)Cervical spine injury with whiplash injury
neck with central cord syndrome.
(c) Acute posterior dislocation of C3 – C4
vertebrae.
(d) Ligamentous injury and trauma to the cord
structures.
(e) Multiple bodily injuies.”
After considering the C.T. Scan report and wound certificate,
the doctor certified loss of earning capacity as follows:
“1.Cervical disc prolapse C3 – C4 causing
severe neck pain and limitation of all the
movements of neck. Flexion extention,
rotation and side bending and moding
movements and 50% reduced. Causing him
difficult to carry weight on the head.
2. Severe brachial neuralgia both upper limb
due to disc prolapse.
3. Weakness of both upper limb muscles
causing difficult to lift roots are
affects roots affection C3 – C4 roots are
affected due to disc prolapse.
MFA.(WCC)163/2006 2
4. Stiffness and pain of the right upper
limb due to weakness of shoulder muscles
due to brachial neuralgia.
5. Chronic post traumatic head ache, vertigo
and giddiness and sequlac of scalp
injury following accident.
Permananet loss of earning capacity as a
Loading & Unloading worker is assessed
as 60%.”
The Commissioner did not accept 60% loss of earning
capacity and awarded compensation for only 50% loss of
earning capacity. The contention of the appellant
insurance company is that a petition was filed for
referring the claimant to the Medical Board as there are
disputes regarding the percentage of disability. The
Commissioner rejected the above petition . As provided
under Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the
qualified medical practitioner assessed the loss of earning
capacity and considering the injuries, there is no
necessity to refer the claimant again to the Medical Board.
No other question is raised before us. We are of the
opinion that considering the nature of injuries and
considering the disability certificate which is supported
by wound certificate, C.T.Scan report etc., merely because
he was not examined by the Medical Board, the award cannot
MFA.(WCC)163/2006 3
be interfered and there is no substantial question of
law .
The appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
M.N.KRISHNAN
JUDGE
tks