Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 340 (HP)

LAL BAHADUR v. KAVI RAJ

2005-09-13

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2005
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, HPPWD, Rampur Bushehar (for short the Commissioner) in Case No. WCA-1/97 decided on 19.9.2000. 2. The claimant alleges that he is the father of deceased Bimla Devi. According to him he is entitled to compensation under the Act. Under the provisions of the Act compensation under Section 3 is payable in case of death to the dependants. Section 4(4) provides that in case of death the employer shall pay compensation of Rs. 2,500/- to the eldest surviving dependant of the workman for the funeral charges expenses Section 8 provides that the employer is to make payment in case of death to the dependant. In case an employer deposits the money with the Commissioner, then the Commissioner on deposit of such money under Section 8(4) is required to issue notice to the dependants of the workman. Section 21 of the Act provides for the venue of proceedings In Section 21(1) (b) reference has been made to the residence of the workman or in case of his death the dependant claiming compensation. The State of HP. has also framed the H.P. Workmens Compensation Rules for claiming of compensation. Rule 8(1) provides that the dependant of a deceased workman may apply to the Commissioner to deposit the compensation in respect of the death of the workman. Such application shall be in form *G\ Para 2 of form G reds as follow" - "(2) The applicant(s) is a/are dependant(s) of the deceased workman being his.............................." 3. It is thus clear that compensation under the Act is payable only to the dependants and not to all the legal heirs. 4. Such application shall be in form *G\ Para 2 of form G reds as follow" - "(2) The applicant(s) is a/are dependant(s) of the deceased workman being his.............................." 3. It is thus clear that compensation under the Act is payable only to the dependants and not to all the legal heirs. 4. The term dependant has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act which reads as under: “2(d) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman, namely- (i) a widow, a minor (legitimate or adopted) son, an unmarried (legitimate or adopted) daughter, or a widowed mother; and (ii) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm; (iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death- (a) widower, (b) a parent other than a widowed mother, (c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarred illegitimate daughter or a daughter (legitimate or illegitimate or adopted) if married and. a minor or if widowed and a minor, (d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor, (e) a widowed daughter-in-law, (f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son, (g) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or (h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the workman is alive); 5. A parent other than the widowed mother can only claim compensation under the Act if it is further alleged and provider that such parent was partly or wholly dependant on the earning of the deceased workman at the time of his death. In the present case neither in the claim application nor in the statement made before the Commissioner any averment has been made that the claimant was wholly or partly dependant on the income of the deceased. Therefore, the claimant is not a dependant within the meaning of the Act and as such the claim petition on his behalf was not maintainable. 6. In view of the above discussion there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.