Chandra Smt. and Others vs Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation II and Another

Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—The sole question involved in this writ petition is as to the justification of apportionment made by the Workmen''s

Compensation Commissioner in respect of the compensation awarded to the various dependents namely, the widowed wife, mother, unmarried

sister and minor brothers of the deceased.

The compensation of Rs. 58,152 was determined as payable to the dependents of the deceased employee by the first respondent. Thereafter

based on the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Inspector of Labour, 5th Circle, Madras, the petitioners and the second respondent were identified

as the dependents of the deceased employee. While the first petitioner is the mother of the deceased, the second petitioner was the minor sister at

the time of the death of the deceased, while the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were the minor brothers of the deceased at the relevant point of time.

Though there is no specific provision as to at what rate the compensation should be apportioned amongst the various dependents, the first

respondent herein apparently considering the age of the second respondent who became a widow at a very young age, awarded a sum of Rs.

42,000 to be payable to her, while the remaining sum was distributed amongst the petitioners.

The grievance of the first petitioner is that the father of the deceased namely, the husband of the first petitioner though employed, is leading a

wayward life and therefore they were mainly dependent on the income of the deceased and therefore the meagre sum apportioned in their favour

by the first respondent was not justified. It is also averred in the grounds of the writ petition that in a compromise talk that took place between the

first petitioner and the second respondent, an agreement was reached in the presence of local panchayatdars in which the second respondent

agreed to take one-fourth of the total amount awarded as her share. It is claimed that the said compromise was reached on April 6, 1991 in the

presence of witnesses. However, no material was placed before the Court in support of the said averment.

Though no fault can be found with the apportionment made in respect of the younger brothers of the deceased and also the mother of the

deceased, I am of the view that the apportionment made in respect of the unmarried sister of the deceased could have been little more having

regard to the fact that she is yet to get married, while the widow of the deceased did not have any issue through her late husband. While

considering the plight of the dependent sister who is yet to get married, I am of the view that the hardship would have been much more for the

dependent sister. In that view, I feel that the apportionment made in favour of the minor sister can be increased from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 17,000

while reducing the compensation apportioned in favour of the second respondent from Rs. 42,000 to Rs. 30,000. I am of the view that such a

small adjustment in the compensation payable to the second petitioner and the second respondent, will meet the ends of justice having regard to the

facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, while modifying the order impugned in the writ petition, by reducing the apportionment made in

favour of the second respondent from Rs. 42,000 to Rs. 30,000 there shall be an increase in the compensation awarded in favour of the second

petitioner from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 17,000. On the above basis, the first respondent is directed to make out the consequential benefits payable to the

petitioner and second respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the W.M.P. is closed.