Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 106 (UTT)

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. KRISHNA PAL

2008-03-14

B.C.KANDPAL

body2008
JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 30 or the Workmen Compensation Act has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2000 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kumaun Region, Haldwani, District Nainital in W.C. Case No. 32 of 1997 whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded Rs. 2,16,260.00 as compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased was employed with Sri Inder Pal Singh C/o M/s Janta Transport as a driver. On 16.12.1995 at about 08:30 pm when the deceased Radhey Shyam – driver of the truck No. UGP/4900 was trying to turn his truck at Dalpatpur near village Mohgnapur, then the truck No. HP2/1471, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, dashed the truck of Radhey Shyam from one side, due to which, Radhey Shyam sustained serious injuries and died on 17.12.1995 due to the said injuries. At the time of the accident, he was aged about 35 years and used to earn Rs. 1,800/- per month. Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition before the learned Commissioner for Rs. 1,77,354/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum. 3. The appellant/Insurance Company as well as Sri Inderpal Singh contested the claim petition and filed their separate written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that on the date of accident, Radhey Shyam was died during working hours as a driver in truck No. UGP/4900, therefore, the claimants were entitled to get compensation under the provision of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The learned Workmen Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 2,16,260/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the Insurance Company filed this appeal before this Court. 5. Heard Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, Sri A.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has pressed this appeal only on the ground that the learned Workmen Commissioner, while deciding the claim petition, did not consider the definition of the “dependent” as provided under Section 2(d) of the Workmen Compensation Act which shows that the major brothers do not fall in the category of dependents of the deceased. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has pressed this appeal only on the ground that the learned Workmen Commissioner, while deciding the claim petition, did not consider the definition of the “dependent” as provided under Section 2(d) of the Workmen Compensation Act which shows that the major brothers do not fall in the category of dependents of the deceased. 7. Sri A.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner does not suffer with any illegality. 8. After having considered the arguments submitted by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, it appears to me that the short controversy in this case is as to whether the claimants not being minor brothers of the deceased are dependent to the deceased or not and as to whether they are entitled to receive any compensation or not? 9. For resolving this controversy, it would be relevant to look into the provision of Section 2(1)(d) of the Workmen Compensation Act, which reads as under :- “2 Definitions (1)…….. (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) a widower (b) a parent other than a widowed mother. (c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried 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 of 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 parental grandparent if no parent of the workman is alive.” 10. (d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister of 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 parental grandparent if no parent of the workman is alive.” 10. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is quite clear that the claimants cannot be said to be the dependants of the deceased, in view of the reasons that none of the claimants on the date of the deceased were minor. As the record reveals on the date when the claim petition was filed before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, the age of the respondent Krishan Pal was 50 years and the age of younger brother Jagdish was 28 years, another claimant Om Pal is the brother whose age is between Krishna Pal and Jagdish, therefore, he was also not minor at the time of the death of deceased. Hence, it is quite clear that all the claimants were major at the time of the accident. The provision quoted above shows that only the minor brothers have right to claim the compensation in view of the aforesaid provision but in the instant case on the date of death of the deceased- Radhey Shyam, none of the claimant was minor. Therefore, the claimants do not fall in the category of the dependant as has been envisaged in the aforesaid provision of the Workmen Compensation Act. 11. It has been brought to my notice that the entire money has been deposited by the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and the claimants have withdrawn that money. It is open for the Insurance Company/appellant to initiate the proceedings for recovery of the money awarded by the Workmen Compensation against the claimants. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.2000 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner is set aside and the claim petition is accordingly dismissed.