Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2097 (RAJ)

Nathi Bai v. Asst. Engineer (O&M)

2017-09-19

INDERJEET SINGH

body2017
ORDER : Inderjeet Singh, J. The instant appeal has been filed by the counsel for the appellant against the order dated 29.11.2001 as well as order dated 29.04.202 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Bundi in case no. WCC/F/9/2001. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the a claim petition was filed by the Smt. Anita wife of Sh. Om Prakash before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Bundi, stating therein that her husband Om Prakash died while working with the Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Keshorai Patan, Bundi, she claim compensation on account of death of her husband as he died during the course of employment. An amount of Rs. 2,18,479/- was deposited by the JWNL, calculating compensation before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 29.11.2001 ordered for payment of compensation Rs. 70,000/- + 43,470/- in favour of the wife Smt. Anita, Commissioner further ordered for payment of Rs. 80,000/- to the son of deceased Om Prakash and lastly ordered for payment of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the appellant i.e. mother of deceased out of total compensation awarded. 3. The present appellant filed an application before the Commissioner for awarding more compensation to her on the said application the Commissioner vide order dated 29.04.2002, further ordered for payment of Rs. 27,500/- in favour of the appellant out of total compensation awarded. Thus, in total, the appellant has received Rs. 25,000 + 27,500 = 52,500/-, out of total compensation deposited by the JWNL. 4. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Commissioner has erred in not awarding the half amount of compensation in her favour. Counsel further argued that the appellant is a widow and old lady therefore, she is entitled for half compensation awarded by the Commissioner. 5. Counsel for the respondent (JWNL) submits that they have deposited the complete award amount before the Commissioner and which has been distributed by the Commissioner in accordance with law. 6. Heard counsel for the parties. 7. I have gone through the record and the orders passed by the Commissioner on 29.11.2001 as well as 29.04.2002. I did not find any illegality committed by the Commissioner. 6. Heard counsel for the parties. 7. I have gone through the record and the orders passed by the Commissioner on 29.11.2001 as well as 29.04.2002. I did not find any illegality committed by the Commissioner. For the reasons, firstly, the appellant is a retired government employee and she is receiving the pension from the Government; secondly, in the statement before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, she has stated that complete award amount may be deposited in the name of children. 8. In that view of the matter, no substantial questions of law, is made out, therefore, appeal as well as cross objections are hereby dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.