Judgment:
N.P. Singh, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. It is directed against the award dated 17.11.1987 given by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Durg, in Case No. 2 W.C. Act/86 (Fatal), dismissing the claim of the appellant.
3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that:
(1) One S.P. Bhowmick was employed in Mahamaya Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant who died in harness on 27.12.1985 while he was on duty.
(2) Respondent No. 4 had deposited Rs. 69,080/- in the Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Durg for disbursement of the amount to the claimants of the deceased.
(3) The respondent No. 2 wife and respondent No. 3 minor son of the deceased preferred claim for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Durg.
(4) The appellant, claiming herself to be an unmarried sister and dependant of the deceased also preferred a separate claim application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for V3rd share in the compensation amount.
(5) The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 objected to the claim of the appellant by stating that the appellant was married and is a divorced lady and she was not dependant of the deceased and she was not entitled to any compensation amount claimed by her.
(6) The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on consideration of the case and evidence, gave an award in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, rejecting the claim of the appellant.
4. Mr. Vivek Rusia, counsel for the appellant, has contended that the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has not considered the case in its proper legal perspective and has wrongly dismissed the claim of the appellant. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not been able to file any document to show that the appellant was married and is a divorcee. The respondent No. 2 who is the sister-in-law of the appellant, in her deposition was not able to say as to when, where and to whom the appellant was married. The letter, Exh. P-5, alleged to have been written by one Durvadas Gupta, husband of the appellant, to the appellant has no legal sanctity. The letter, Exh. P-5, is in Bengali script and it was not followed by translation, either in English or in Hindi. Therefore, the findings of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that the appellant was married and divorced lady and was not dependent on the deceased and was not entitled to claim compensation is perverse and bad in law.
5. Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on the other hand, has contended that the letter, Exh. P-5, written to the appellant by her husband was admitted in evidence without any objection by the appellant. It is not now open to the appellant to challenge the admissibility of the letter, Exh. P-5, in evidence at the appellate stage. He further contended that an appeal lies under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act only on a substantial question of law. The appellant has not been able to formulate any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
6. Contention of Mr. Tamaskar is well founded.
7. Proviso to Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, inter alia, provides that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.
8. Mr. Vivek Rusia, counsel for the appellant, has not been able to point out any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Letter, Exh. P-5, is much prior to the death of the deceased. The letter, Exh. P-5, addressed to the appellant by her husband settles the controversy at rest that the appellant is not unmarried and dependant of the deceased. The appellant does not come within the definition of the dependant, under Section 2(1)(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and she is, therefore, not entitled to compensation awarded by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.
9. For the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. There is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.