Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 962 (ORI)

Puranmal v. Geetarani

2009-12-16

S.C.PARIJA

body2009
ORDER Dt.16.12.2009 — The claimant Sri Puranmal who is the father of the deceased workman, has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 16.07.2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sambalpur, in W.C. Case No.26 of 2005, awarding compensation of Rs.4,11,900/- and directing apportionment of the same between the appellant, widow wife and minor son of the deceased workman. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the Commissioner erred in apportioning the compensation amount amongst the dependents of the deceased workman, including the widow wife, inasmuch as, she had already accepted her marriage articles and permanent alimony and was therefore not entitled to any compensation, as the widow wife of the deceased workman. In this regard, it is submitted that as Mukeshpal Singh (deceased workman) had entered into an agreement dated 17.10.2003 with Smt. Geetarani (the wife) wherein it was agreed that she would not claim any moveable and immoveable property in future from her husband (deceased workman), after receipt of Rs.3,10,000/- as permanent alimony, learned Tribunal erred in not considering the same while passing the impugned award and directing apportionment of the compensation amount amongst the widow wife, minor son and father of the deceased workman. It is further submitted that the Commissioner has not considered the order passed by the Addl.District Judge, Delhi, in H.M.A. Case No.916 of 2003, where¬in it had been mentioned that receipt of Rs.3,10,000/- as perma¬nent alimony, the claimant shall not make any claim over the moveable and immovable property of the husband (deceased workman) and also undertook not to make any claim regarding Stridhan articles. Accordingly, it is submitted that the apportionment of the compensation amount by the learned Tribunal is improper and illegal. On a perusal of the impugned award it is seen that the Commissioner has taken into consideration the question as to whether the claimant-Geetarani was the wife of deceased Mukeshpal Singh at the time of his accidental death on 31.08.2005. The Commissioner on consideration of the documents on record came to find that the Addl.District Judge, Delhi, in its judgment dated 20.11.2003, passed in H.M.A. Case No.916 of 2003, had held that the marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved straightway in view of the provisions of Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Mar¬riage Act and the parties were advised to make further efforts for reconciliation. The second application registered as H.M.A. Case No.446 of 2004, in the Court of Addl.District Judge, Delhi, was dismissed as withdrawn by the advocate for the husband (deceased workman) on 13.10.2005, after his accidental death on 31.08.2005. Accordingly, the Commissioner came to find that the dependency of Geetarani (wife) cannot come to an end before dissolution of the marriage and she did not cease to be the wife of deceased workman on the date of his accidental death, which took place on 31.8.2005, arising out of and in course of his employment. The Commissioner accordingly found that at the time of the accident, Geetarani continued as a wife of the deceased workman and she is one of the dependant of the deceased workman as per the provision of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the W.C. Act and is entitled to the part of a compensation amount. The Commissioner, on the basis of its aforesaid findings, has come to hold that the widow wife, minor son and the father of the deceased workman are entitled to the compensation amount payable and has accordingly apportioned the same in the following manner : “1. Master Himanshu Minor Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) 2. Smt. Geetarani Widow Rs. 1,11,900/- (Rupees wife One lakhs eleven thousand nine hundred only) 3. Sri Puranmal Father Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)” Considering the findings of the Commissioner as given in the impugned award and the reasons in support of the same, no impropriety or illegality can be said to have been committed by the Commissioner, so as to warrant any interference in this present appeal. The appeal being devoid of merits, the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.