GRASIMINDUSTRIES LTD Vs. C K ABDULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The employer- first respondent in W.C.C.No.80 of 1992 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kozhikode is the appellant. The first respondent in this appeal was a workman employed in the repair work of auto-garage machine of the appellant. On 16- 10-1989 while the first respondent was attending the repair work in the auto- garage machine, he sustained a fracture on the right leg below the knee. The first respondent filed an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act' for short)claiming a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. It was alleged that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment . It was averred that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.2000/- The appellant admitted that the first respondent was a workman who was employed as a mechanic. . The fact that the first respondent sustained an injury during the course of employment was also admitted. It was contended that the first respondent underwent treatment in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and thereafter he was on accident leave from 17-10-1989 to 7-05-1990. Thereafter the first respondent rejoined duty by producing a fitness certificate issued by a competent doctor in which it was declared that he was fit to rejoin duty. Thereafter he received the full wages and all other accident benefits due to him as per the terms of long term agreement between the employer and the trade unions. It was contended that at the time of accident, the monthly salary of the first respondent was only Rs.1683/- and the Company had paid an amount of Rs.13,554/- towards wages for the leave period and an amount of Rs.685/- towards the medical expenses. It was also contended that if the respondent was entitled to any amount, the New India Assurance Company Limited is liable to pay the same as the employer had taken a personal accident group insurance policy.

(2.) The insurer filed a written statement admitting the existence of a group personal accident insurance policy. It was contended that the Company had paid an amount of Rs.23,032/- as actual compensation towards the settlement of the claim.

(3.) The first respondent gave evidence as A.W.1. Exts.A1 to A3 proved and marked. Ext.A3 is a disability certificate produced by the first respondent in which the disability was assessed to 25%. The appellant did not adduce any evidence. The appellant filed a petition before the Commissioner to refer the first respondent to a medical board/expert qualified medical practitioner on the ground that Ext.A3 was not correct and genuine. The Commissioner referred the first respondent to the Professor and Head of the Department of Orthopaedics, Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode who issued a disability certificate which is proved and marked as Ext.X1. In Ext.X1 the disability of the first respondent was shown as 6%. The Commissioner did not accept either Ext.A3 or Ext.X1. After discussing the evidence, the Commissioner found that the first respondent was having a loss of earning capacity of 15% and ordered the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.26,316/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident as compensation. It was also found that the contention of the appellant that the amount of Rs.13,554/- already paid should be adjusted towards the compensation fixed was not correct. The appellant was directed to pay the entire amount. Challenging those findings, this M.F.A is filed.