UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. ABDUL RAZAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by an insurer is against an award passed under the (since re-christened "the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923"). No such appeal shall lie unless a substantial question of law is involved in it in view of the first proviso to Section 30(1) of that Act. Before the Commissioner, the insurer denied liability to indemnify the insured on the plea that the incident did not arise in the course of employment. It also disputed the lump sum payment claimed by the applicant and his plea as to the monthly wages.

(2.) Appreciating the evidence, the Commissioner held that the applicant was driving the lorry of his employer and when It reached near a check post, a group of men manhandled him. FIR. accident-cum-wound certificate, reference card to the Medical College Hospital, body mahazar, certificate issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police etc. were taken on record. The accident was. thus, found as one that falls within the ambit of the provisions of the Act.

(3.) Supporting the appeal, it Is argued. Firstly, that the monthly wages ought to have been pegged at Rs. 4,000, having regard to the provision in Explanation II to Section 4(1)(a) and (b) and the impugned award, treating the monthly wages as Rs. 6,000 is unsustainable in law. Secondly, it is argued that the percentage of loss of earning capacity has not been assessed by a qualified medical practitioner in terms of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sreedharan, 1995 1 KerLT 275. The further plea is that the Commissioner awarded amounts in excess of that claimed.