High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY v. P.KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.RAMAN - MFA No. 163 of 2006  RD-KL 1531 (6 November 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMMFA No. 163 of 2006()
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY
1. P.KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.RAMAN,
2. AHAMMED HAJI.E.K., S/O.CHEKKU,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & M.N.KRISHNAN, JJ.M.F.A.(W.C.C.)NO.163 OF 2006 Dated 6th November, 2006
Koshy,J. First respondent head load worker met with an accident by which he sustained the following injuries:
"(a) Head injury.
(b)Cervical spine injury with whiplash injury neck with central cord syndrome.
(c) Acute posterior dislocation of C3 - C4 vertebrae.
(d) Ligamentous injury and trauma to the cord structures.
(e) Multiple bodily injuies." After considering the C.T. Scan report and wound certificate, the doctor certified loss of earning capacity as follows: "1.Cervical disc prolapse C3 - C4 causing
severe neck pain and limitation of all the movements of neck. Flexion extention, rotation and side bending and moding movements and 50% reduced. Causing him difficult to carry weight on the head.
2. Severe brachial neuralgia both upper limb due to disc prolapse.
3. Weakness of both upper limb muscles causing difficult to lift roots are affects roots affection C3 - C4 roots are affected due to disc prolapse. MFA.(WCC)163/2006 2
4. Stiffness and pain of the right upper limb due to weakness of shoulder muscles due to brachial neuralgia.
5. Chronic post traumatic head ache, vertigo and giddiness and sequlac of scalp injury following accident. Permananet loss of earning capacity as a Loading & Unloading worker is assessed as 60%." The Commissioner did not accept 60% loss of earning capacity and awarded compensation for only 50% loss of earning capacity. The contention of the appellant insurance company is that a petition was filed for referring the claimant to the Medical Board as there are disputes regarding the percentage of disability. The Commissioner rejected the above petition . As provided under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the qualified medical practitioner assessed the loss of earning capacity and considering the injuries, there is no necessity to refer the claimant again to the Medical Board. No other question is raised before us. We are of the opinion that considering the nature of injuries and considering the disability certificate which is supported by wound certificate, C.T.Scan report etc., merely because he was not examined by the Medical Board, the award cannot MFA.(WCC)163/2006 3 be interfered and there is no substantial question of law . The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.