Subsequent disability assessments do not justify a reassessment of compensation previously awarded under the Workmen Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner submits that he sustained injury in an electrical accident on 5.2.2001 and his right upper limb was amputated at shoulder level. On the basis of disability certificate Ext.P1, the respondents sanctioned disablement compensation as per Ext.P2 order dated 26.8.2008 to the tune of Rs.2,10,936/- (Rupees Two lkahs ten thousand nine hundred and thirty six only).

2. After receiving this amount, the petitioner happened to see that in a similar accident one Sri.K.Unnikrishnan also suffered amputation below elbow and disablement compensation was assessed as per Ext.P4 on 10.11.2014 to the tune of Rs.5,58,732/- (Rupees Five lakh fifty eight thousand seven hundred and thirty two only). The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P6 representation before the Regional Personal Officer of the Kerala State Electricity Board requesting for reconsideration of his disablement compensation. For that purpose the petitioner got his disability assessed by Standing Disability Assessment Board on 17.11.2015, as 85% as per Ext.P5 certificate. The representation Ext.P6 submitted by him along with the certificate assessing disability at 85% requesting to revise the compensation was rejected by the Chief Personal Officer of the Kerala W.P.(C) No.6609/2017 State Electricity Board as per Ext.P7 letter dated 23.6.2016 stating that there is no provision for revising the disability compensation on the basis of a subsequent disability certificate. The petitioner has thereafter submitted Ext.P8 representation before the Chairman of the Kerala State Electricity Board which was rejected as per Ext.P9 letter stating that the petitioner was already granted compensation after considering his application in accordance with the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and there is no provision for redetermining the compensation on the basis of a subsequent disability certificate. The petitioner's contention is that another person was granted compensation on his disability being assessed as 70%, though he suffered a similar accident, and compensation was granted at a higher rate.

3. The learned standing counsel points out that in the case referred to by the petitioner the disability was assessed as 70% and it was on account of an accident which occurred in the year 2014. The petitioner who was granted he disability compensation as per Ext.P2 proceedings dated 26.8.2008 cannot be heard to contend that he is entitled to get revised compensation on the basis of subsequent certificate when his case was already settled.

4. On consideration of the contentions raised on either side, it is W.P.(C) No.6609/2017 seen that the petitioner's compensation was rightly assessed in accordance with the provisions contained in workmen Compensation Act, 1923 as early as on 26.8.2008 as per Ext.P2 order. As the provisions contained in the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 does not provide for a redetermination on a subsequent date on the basis of a subsequent disability certificate, the action of the respondents, as revealed from Exts.P7 and P9 orders cannot be said to be illegal. The respondents have considered the matter strictly in accordance with law and rejected the request of the petitioner.

Under the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly the writ petition fails and is dismissed.