Dismissed

A.M.George v. Managing Director

Kerala HC7 Jun 2011MFA (ECC)/117/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged compensation award alleging entitlement to 100% earnings reduction compensation for total disablement rather than 50% physical disability. Court noted under Section 4(b) of Employees' Compensation Act, the full compensation amount had already been awarded to the claimant. Appeal dismissed as no relief due.

What did the court decide?

None granted; appeal dismissed as appellant not entitled to any further relief having already received full compensation.

A.M.George Vs Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

MFA.No. 117 of 2008()

¶6

WCC.92/94 OF COMMISSIONR FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER), ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPELLANT / APPLICANT:

¶8

--------------------------------------

¶9

A.M.GEORGE, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 64 YEARS, AMBATTU KURISWINKAL VEETTIL, NOW RESIDING AT KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-7.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.L.JOSEPH SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT:

¶12

---------------------------------------------

¶13

MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI. V.V. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C.

¶15

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶18

MFA No.117 of 2008-E ------------------------------------------Dated this the 7^th June, 2011

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Basant, J.

¶21

The appellant has come to this Court with this appeal complaining that the reduction in earning capacity for computing the compensation was reckoned under Section-4 of the Employees' Compensation Act only at 50% whereas he is really entitled for 100% compensation. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of the report of the Medical Board that he has suffered 100% reduction in earning capacity, though physical disability was assessed by the Medical Board only at 50%. The Commissioner went wrong in assuming that the physical disability and the reduction in earning capacity are the same; this is the contention urged.

¶22

We have been taken through law on the point in detail. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that following decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v Srinivas Sabata and another

¶23

M.F.ANo.117/2008 2

¶24

(1976(1) SCC 289), K.Janardhanan v United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and another (2008(2) KLT 995 SC) and S.Suresh v Oriental Insurance Company Limited

¶25

and another [(2010) 13 SCC 777], 100% should have been reckoned as the percentage reduction of earning capacity. But, we note that the appellant has already been awarded the full amount, that is Rs.78,235/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident as compensation under Section 4(b). There is no challenge by the Insurance Company against that direction. Going by Section 4(b) as it stood on the date of the accident i.e.22.8.1992, the appellant/claimant is entitled to computation of compensation as shown below:

¶26

Where permanent total	an amou percent wages workman relevant f	nt equal to fifty of the monthly of the injured multiplied by the actor
disablement results from		Or
the injury	an amou thousand is more;	nt of twenty four rupees whichever

¶27

We note that the Commissioner for Workmen's

¶28

M.F.ANo.117/2008 3

¶29

Compensation both in the order impugned as well as the earlier order dated 31.3.1999 has followed the computation under Section 4(b) and awarded an amount of Rs.78,235/- as per the following computation.

¶30

1000 X 50/100 X 156.47 = 78,235.00

¶31

This means that the challenge in this appeal is without merit and cannot be accepted as the entire amount payable by way of compensation (even when the claimant is held to have suffered total permanent disablement) has already been paid to the appellant under the impugned order (and even the earlier order dated 31.3.2011).

¶32

The appellant is therefore not entitled to any relief. This appeal is hence dismissed.

¶33

SD/- R.BASANT JUDGE

¶34

sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶35

css/

A.M.George v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.M.George v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.N.MUTHUKRISHNAN,H.NO.4029,BANGALORE Vs C.G.Babu,Chamakkad House,Palakkad

Rathidevi Vs Saradamma

Muhammed Sali Vs District Superintendent of Police and

St.Sebastian Senior Basic School Vs Velayudhan Ezhuthassan

Dr.N.R.Nisha Vs Commissioner of Police,Ernakulam

Al-Shaik-Al-Rita Memorial Charitable Vs Superintendent of Police