AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award passed by the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, Hubli, in WLA-F-3 of 1989, dated 27.9.1990. The claimant in the proceedings before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner is the sister of the deceased workman who was a bachelor.
The claimant has submitted before the Commissioner that she is wholly dependent on the deceased, although she is married. Her husband is not keeping good health and therefore, she has sought for compensation as a dependent.
The 1st Respondent has remained absent despite issuance of notice by paper publication.
The Insurance Company objected the liability on the ground that the claimant does not come within the definition of ''dependent'' under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. The Commissioner over-ruled the objection and granted compensation in a sum of Rs. 51,667.20. Being aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has come in appeal.
The short question involved in this appeal revolves round the fact whether the claimant would come within the definition of the term ''dependent'' in order to maintain her claim for compensation for the death of the workman concerned. According to the facts narrated in the order of the Commissioner at paragraph 3, it is evident that the claimant is a married lady and her husband is alive, however he is said to be ailing. It has also been stated that the claimant is fully dependent on the deceased workman who is her brother. The claimant is the only legal heir of the deceased workman.
Section 2(d) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act defines the term ''dependent'' as follows:
dependent'' means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman, namely:
(i) a widow, a minor legitimate son and unmarried legitimate 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) widower,
(b) a parent other than a widowed mother,
(c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter illegitimate 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 paternal grandparent if no parent of the workman is alive.''
Therefore, persons who are defined as dependents as aforesaid are alone entitled to receive the compensation.
In the instant case, the material abundantly establishes by the very admission of the claimant that she is married and her husband is alive. In the face of such admission, the claimant would not come within the definition of ''dependent'' to seek compensation for the death of the workman, and she is not a minor. Though the Commissioner was informed of this objection, he has over-ruled it without assigning any valid reasons. Therefore, in view of the material available, it is to be held that the claimant not being a dependent, is not entitled to seek any compensation, either against the owner or against the Insurance Company. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act declares that after the deposit of compensation, if it is found that there are no dependents to receive the compensation, the same has to be returned to the employer.
Under the circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and award of the Commissioner is set aside. There is no order as to costs.