The principle established is that the loss of earning capacity due to specific injuries is to be assessed based on designated schedules within the Employees Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT

Appellants are the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in ECC No.102/17 on the files of the Court of the Employees Compensation Commissioner (Industrial Tribunal), Thrissur. The 1st respondent filed an application claiming compensation under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 , on account of permanent partial disability suffered as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment in an establishment of the appellants.

2. The 1^st respondent contended before the Commissioner that he was employed by the appellants as well as the 2^nd respondent as a Tile Pressing Machine Operator in ‘Sun- Ceramics’ tile factory owned by the 1^st appellant and managed by the 2^nd appellant. The case of the 1^st respondent was that he was engaged through the 2^nd respondent/3rd opposite party, who was a contractor cum worker attached to the factory. On 31.07.2015, at about 8.45 a.m., while the 1^st respondent was operating the tile pressing machine in the factory, his left hand accidentally caught trapped in the machine and he sustained grievous injuries. The 1^st respondent was taken to Jubilee Mission Medical College Hospital, Thrissur and was treated there as an In-patient from 31.07.2015 to 12.08.2015. According to the 1^st respondent, he became permanently incapacitated on account of the injury sustained by him in the accident and the amputation of three fingers.

3. The appellants as well as the 2^nd respondent entered appearance before the Commissioner and filed objections. The appellants denied the accident. The 2^nd respondent denied that the 1^st respondent was engaged through him. The 1^st respondent/applicant examined himself as also a doctor of the Government Medical College, Thrissur, as witnesses on his side. Ext.A1 to A7 were marked from the side of the 1^st respondent. On the side of the appellants/1st and 2^nd opposite parties, the 2^nd respondent and 3rd opposite parties were examined as RW1 and RW2.

4. The learned Commissioner analysed the evidence and held that the claimant was entitled for compensation. The Commissioner granted compensation of Rs.4,00,694/- to the 1^st respondent. Simple interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till the date of accident to the date of payment was also granted. An amount of Rs.1,400/- was awarded being the cost. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, this appeal was filed. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

i. Whether the Commissioner is justified in fixing the loss of earning capacity at 60% when the evidence on record would reveal that the applicant lost three fingers of one hand, which is a scheduled injury included in entry No.8 of Part II of Schedule I, which provides 30%?

ii.Whether the Commissioner acted illegally in not permitting the first and second opposite parties to recover the compensation ordered as per the impugned order from the third opposite party after payment, when the case of the applicant is that he was employed through the third opposite party?”

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent. Perused the pleadings and records.

6. The first issue to be considered is as to whether the Commissioner was justified in fixing the loss of earning capacity at 60%.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant made reference to the provisions of Section 4 (1)(c) of the Act and contended that loss of three fingers of one hand is specifically included in Part II of Schedule I and percentage of loss of earning capacity for the same is 30% as per the schedule. He submitted that only if the injury