SMFA No. 102 of 2010 · Kerala High Court

MFA.102/10 & 125/102documents which are weekly payments statement of theemployer. The Commissioner has stated that those documentsdo not contain the signature of the deceased employee. Obviously, in his wisdom, the Commissioner would have felt itbrittle materials to be relied on against a workman. We do notfind any substantial question of law arising for decision in thisappeal on that ground. As far as fixation of wages, suchfindings would stand confirmed. No other issue arises fordecision in that regard. 4. As far as M.F.A.125/10 filed by the insurer is concerned, theplea is that it has been mulcted with liability to pay interest onthe component of compensation which was found due from theemployer. The insurer's plea before the Commissioner wasthat its liability is limited on the basis of a particular wagestructure. The Commissioner accepted that plea andbifurcated the compensation component to two parts, of whichone was directed to be paid by the insurer. That was to theextent of the insurance cover. The balance was to be paid by MFA.102/10 & 125/103the insured employer. However, the Tribunal, in our view, quite erroneously mulcted the interest component as theliability of the insurer. To that extent, the impugned orderdoes not stand. The appeal of the insurer succeeds to thatlimited extent. In the result, the impugned order of the Workmen'sCompensation Commissioner in W.C.C.No.40/05 is modifieddirecting that the insurer will be liable to pay onlycompensation amount fixed by the Commissioner as againstthe insurer and the employer will pay the remainingcompensation and the entire liability regarding interest interms of the impugned order. The appeals are orderedaccordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge.kkb.18/6.