Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 592 (PNJ)

Balbir Kaur v. Prem Bhushan

2010-01-25

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2010
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Senior Sub Judge (Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act,), Bathinda, dated 06.8.1988, by which an application filed by the appellant for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act) has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Gurcharan Singh (since deceased) was employed as a conductor with Prem Bhushan (respondent No.l) on Truck No.PUT-2565 since 1.9.1985. Gurcharan Singh died on 05.11.1985 in the course of his employment. He was unmarried aged 25 years at the time of his accidental death. He was earning Rs. 550/- per month including diet etc. The application was filed by his parents claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of personal loss. 3. On notice, respondent No.l, appeared and admitted the claim in reply. He rather averred that claim for compensation has already been lodged by him with respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) as the truck in question was insured vide cover Note bearing No.477799 dated 24.7.1985 for the relevant period. In its reply, respondent No.2 showed ignorance regarding the cause of death of Gurcharan Singh and its liability. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1.Whether Gurcharan Singh was a conductor on truck No.PUT-2565 owned by respondent No.l and he died during the course of his employment? If so its effect OPA 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation. If so to what amount and from whom? OPA 3. Whether the application is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 4. Relief: 5. Out of the aforesaid issues, issues No.l and 2 were taken up together by the learned Commissioner and found that Gurcharan Singh was employed as a Conductor on the truck of respondent No.l which was duly insured with respondent No.2. for the relevant period and the death had occurred on duty in the course of his employment on 5.11.1985. However, the application was dismissed on the ground that as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, the applicants were not dependent on the deceased (Gurcharan Singh) as they failed to lead evidence about their dependency upon his income. It was rather observed that they had another son and also 10 acres of land. 6. However, the application was dismissed on the ground that as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, the applicants were not dependent on the deceased (Gurcharan Singh) as they failed to lead evidence about their dependency upon his income. It was rather observed that they had another son and also 10 acres of land. 6. Aggrieved against the order of learned Commissioner dated 06.8.1988, the present appeal has been filed only by mother of the deceased as father was impleaded as respondent No.3. Ft is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that even respondent No.3 had died during the pendency of the appeal and was represented through his legal representatives. Learned counsel for the appellant has, inter-alia, contended that the order of learned Commissioner is patently illegal because under Section 2(l)(d)(b) of the Act, parents of the deceased would be dependent upon him and as the application was filed by both the appellants/parents (Hazura Singh and Balbir Kaur) they were required to be held dependents and their application should have been allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the definition of dependents which is provided under Section 2(l)(d) of the Act and reads thus:- (d "dependant" means any of the following relatives of deceased workman, namely:- (i) a widow, a minor [legitimate or adopted] son unmarried[legitimate or adopted] daughter or a widowed mother; and (ii) if wholly dependant 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 dependant 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 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". 8. According to the aforesaid definition, the appellant is included in the list of dependents. 9. 8. According to the aforesaid definition, the appellant is included in the list of dependents. 9. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that evidence has come on record that the appellant was dependant upon the earnings of the deceased. It is further submitted that generally parents are dependants partially or wholly on the income of their young son despite the fact that they earn something for their survival. It is submitted that the conditions mentioned in Section 2(l)(d)(iii) of the Act is harsh. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that even the appellant while appearing as AW-4 has categorically stated that she was dependent upon the income of the deceased. 10. The Act only provides that a relation defined in Section 2(1)(d) can maintain a petition for the purpose of claiming compensation. The definition is given only for the purpose of clarity so that there could not be any ambiguity or confusion in the mind of the Court as to who is the dependent of the deceased. All the relations have been categorically prescribed who could maintain a petition for compensation. The learned Commissioner had held that appellant could not be treated as a dependant during the life time of her husband. But now admittedly she is a widow, therefore, she is entitled to compensation as a dependant. 11. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.8.1988 is set aside. The appeal is remanded back to the learned Commissioner, Bathinda, for the purpose of assessing the compensation to be paid to the appellant, within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. 12. Registry is directed to send this case to the learned Commissioner, Bathinda, positively on or before 31.3.2010, and the parties may appear there either personally or through their counsel.