Judgment:
FAO No.74 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.74 of 1990 Date of Decision.17.07.2013 Pushpa Devi widow of Sh.
Jarnail Singh .....Appellant Versus Shri Dina Nath Rawal and others .......Respondents Present: None for the appellant.
Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr.D.P.Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.
KANNAN 1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
Yes 2.
To be referred to the Reporters or No.?.
Yes 3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Yes -.- K.
KANNAN J.
(ORAL) 1.
The appeal is against the order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner apportioning the compensation determined for the death of one Jarnail Singh, driver working with the 1st respondent and who died in the couRs.of his employment.
The widow had originally filed the claim petition and the mother of the deceased namely the mother-in-law of the claimant had also filed an independent claim.
Both the cases were clubbed together and in the array of parties, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner had arrayed the widow as the 1st petitioner and the mother of the deceased as the 2nd petitioner.
The Commissioner awarded 65% to the widow and 35% to the mother finding that she is also a heir at law.”
2. The question of law that is involved in this case, as seen Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.07.19 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.74 of 1990 -2- from the grounds of appeal, is whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner could have directed the apportionment to the mother of the deceased without addressing the issue of whether she was wholly dependent on the deceased or not.
In this case, it is admitted fact that the mother-in-law was widow but the contention raised in the ground of appeal is that the mother-in-law was drawing a pension after the death of her husband and she was actually being looked after by yet another son.
She would refer to the fact of her own statement in evidence before the Commissioner about her dependence on her husband and the fact that her mother-in-law was being maintained by her brother-in-law had not been denied and even her brother-in-law had given evidence that he was looking after her.”
3. The definition of dependent under Section 2(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act is relevant in order to find the entitlement of the person.
This includes in clause (i) a widow, a minot legitimate son and unmarried legitimate daughter or a widowed mother.
The issue of whether the mother is dependent or not is statutorily presumed when the mother is a widow.
The further question of whether as a matter of fact she was dependent does not arise at all.
That is applicable only in case of consideration of clauses (ii) and (iii) contained in the definition 2 (d).Clause (ii) refers to a claim by a son or a daughter, who had attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm and wholly dependent on the earnings of the workman.
Clause (iii) requires also an elucidation of a factual position of a person as wholly or in part dependent if he was a widower, a parent other than a widowed mother and illegitimate son and other classes of persons mentioned in the said clause.
Clause (iii) Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.07.19 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.74 of 1990 -3- (b) is itself a further vindication of the above interpretation that I have adopted, for the dependence is seen only for a parent other than widowed mother.
If she was a widowed mother, the question of dependence cannot be a matter of evidence for it has to be statutorily presumed.
The assessment to compensation for the widowed mother by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was, therefore, perfectly justified and I find no reason to interfere with the same.”
4. There has been no representation for the appellant and I have proceeded to examine the case on merits on the basis of records and with the assistance of the counsel appearing for the insurance company.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
(K.
KANNAN) JUDGE July 17, 2013 Pankaj* Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.07.19 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh