JOJI M. GEORGE Vs. SABU M. I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the order dtd. 27/5/2011 in WCC No.50 of 2008 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kottayam. Appellant was the applicant in the WCC and respondents 1 and 2 were the 1st and 2nd opposite parties therein. Parties are here and after referred to as per their status before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (CWC).

(2.) The applicant was a workman employed by the 1 st opposite party as a driver in the autorickshaw owned by him. The applicant suffered bodily injuries in an accident that occurred on 2/9/2006 in the course of and out of his employment with the 1 st opposite party. At the time of accident, he was deriving a monthly salary of Rs.5,000.00 and was aged 26 years. The applicant sustained fracture on the right inferior and superior pubic rumus and urethral injury. The vehicle was insured with the 2 nd opposite party and had a valid policy at the time of the accident. Applicant moved the WCC seeking compensation. After the preliminary inquiry, the 1 st and 2nd opposite parties entered in appearance and filed their respective written statements. The 1st opposite party admitted that the applicant was his employee and that the accident had happened during the course of his employment. The 2nd opposite party in the written statement adopted a stand of total denial. The claims of the applicant, his status as a workman under the 1 st opposite party, the employer- employee relationship between them, the injury suffered, the disability and the claims regarding the age and monthly wages of the applicant at the time of the accident were denied. The CWC framed six issues and the parties proceeded to tender evidence. From the side of the applicant, AW1 and AW2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the 1 st and 2nd opposite parties. Exts. R1 and R2 were marked. The CWC, after hearing the parties, held that the 2 nd opposite party is liable to indemnify the 1st opposite party. The workmen's compensation payable to the applicant was fixed at Rs.38,122.00 together with interest at the rate of 12%. Dissatisfied with the said compensation awarded, the applicant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) The following substantial question of law is drawn for consideration in this appeal: Whether the order of the CWC impugned herein is perverse and legally unsustainable for the reason that the monthly income of the applicant which was claimed and substantiated with evidence, had been substituted with a different amount, without any reasonable basis and in computing compensation based on the same?