LAWS(KER)-2012-6-660

THE MANAGER, M/S. ROCKSIDE ESTATE, EDAPETTY, MUTTIL SOUTH, POST KALPETTA NORTH VYTHIRI, WAYANAD DISTRICT Vs. APPU, S/O. KUMARAN

Decided On June 15, 2012
The Manager, M/S. Rockside Estate, Edapetty, Muttil South, Post Kalpetta North Vythiri, Wayanad District Appellant
V/S
Appu, S/O. Kumaran Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M .F.A. No. 102/10 is filed by the employer and M.F.A. No. 125/10 is by the insurer. The award under challenge is passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The matter relates to a case of death. The accident is admitted. The employer -employee relationship is admitted. The Commissioner awarded amounts on the basis of the materials on record.

(2.) THE appeal of the employer, M.F.A. 102/10, is mainly founded on the plea that the deceased employee was not drawing emoluments as found. The employer had placed two documents before the Commissioner. Assimilating the evidence, the Commissioner was not prepared to act on those documents which are weekly payments statement of the employer. The Commissioner has stated that those documents do not contain the signature of the deceased employee. Obviously, in his wisdom, the Commissioner would have felt it brittle materials to be relied on against a workman. We do not find any substantial question of law arising for decision in this appeal on that ground. As far as fixation of wages, such findings would stand confirmed. No other issue arises for decision in that regard. As far as M.F.A. 125/10 filed by the insurer is concerned, the plea is that it has been mulcted with liability to pay interest on the component of compensation which was found due from the employer. The insurer's plea before the Commissioner was that its liability is limited on the basis of a particular wage structure. The Commissioner accepted that plea and bifurcated the compensation component to two parts, of which one was directed to be paid by the insurer. That was to the extent of the insurance cover. The balance was to be paid by the insured employer. However, the Tribunal, in our view, quite erroneously mulcted the interest component as the liability of the insurer. To that extent, the impugned order does not stand. The appeal of the insurer succeeds to that limited extent.