D. Raju, C.J.
1. The above appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company which was arrayed as the second respondent on the file of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Joginder Nagar, Mandi District in proceeding file No. 2 against the order dated December 12, 1990 passed therein awarding a total compensation of Rs. 78,593.36 to the claimants who are the sons and daughters of late Salig Ram, said to be a resident of village Pehloon Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra. The case of the claimants before the Commissioner constituted under the Workman's Compensation Act was that one Suresh Kumar aged about 27 years, the brother of the claimants was working as driver with one Ami Chand Rana, the 5th respondent herein, getting a salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month, that on July 18, 1988 at about 3.30 p.m. when the said Suresh Kumar was carrying products of forest nursery, an accident took place at Bharoli Nalla, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, as a result of which he was said to have sustained fatal injuries and died as a consequence thereof on the spot. Invoking the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, the applicants claimed for the award of a compensation of rupees two lakhs.
2. The appellant Insurance Company appears to have filed the reply opposing the claim that the application filed in such form is not maintainable, that all the necessary parties have not been joined to the proceeding and no legal notice as envisaged under the Act has been given, in addition to contending that at no point of time the claimants made known about the accident and the resultant death had never been brought to the notice of the Insurance Company by the applicants or by the first respondent employer and, therefore, the application may be dismissed.
3. The authority below after conducting an inquiry came to the conclusion that there was no serious objection to the age of the workman and his death while in the employment or the wages claimed and that the workman was being paid only Rs. 800/- per month. Applying the formula fixed in case of death resulting from an injury, the compensation was determined at 40 per cent of the monthly wages and by multiplying the same with the relevant factor fixed at 213.67 and the total wages which was payable as compensation was fixed at Rs. 68,342.40 and awarded further total interest on the compensation due at 6 per cent for a period of 21/2 years in the sum of Rs. 10,251.36. Consequently the total compensation payable was arrived at Rs. 78,593.36.
4. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company, as pointed out earlier, has filed the appeal challenging the said order. Mr. Rajiv Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company, contended that the authority below could not and should not have awarded any compensation in favour of the claimants in the absence of any pleading or proof that the claimants were in fact dependents upon the deceased worker, that the authority below wrongly recorded as though the appellant has admitted anything and that no adequate opportunity was given to the appellant before saddling the appellant with the liability to pay the amount. As a matter of fact, the plea about the absence of any pleading and proof of the claimants being the dependents of the deceased workman was projected in due course to contend that the application itself could not have been maintained by them in the absence of such pleading or proof of the said vital fact. Per contra, Mr. Deepak Gupta, while adopting the reasoning of the authority below contended that no specific objection or plea was taken in this regard by the appellant before the authority below and in the absence of the same it is not permissible for the appellant Company to urge such a question for the first time. Argued the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants that even assuming that there was no specific plea about the dependency, the authority below acted on the admission of the appellant and in any event the claimants should not be put to sufferance on account of some indifferent or indiscreet action on the part of the authorised representatives of the claimants who filed the claim petition by adopting a wrong format and the claimants at any rate should be given an opportunity to pursue the claim by filing the claim and reagitate the claim before the authority below.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. Having regard to the larger issue which arises, both the learned Counsel appearing on either side made certain submissions in the light of some decisions of other High Courts to which a reference also can be made before deciding the main objections as to the absence of necessary pleading about the dependency of the claimants and any proof thereof as a deciding factor even for maintaining the claim petition before the authority below.
6. In 1996 (1) ACJ 579 (Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company v. Sankar Tarai and Ors.), a learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court has held that though a minor sister of the deceased workman may be a dependent, the major brother though was said to be depending on the workman for his living, could not be held to be so. In 1991 (2) ACJ 874, (P.L. Vellaichamy v. Union of India and Ors.), S. SRINIVASAN, J. as His Lordship then was, held that a paternal uncle of a deceased workman cannot claim to be a parent of the deceased worker and a widowed mother though living separately would be a dependent on the earning of the deceased worker. In 1997 (1) ACJ 515 (Shipra Bhowmick v. Presiding Officer and Ors.), a learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a divorcee lady could not be held to be entitled to compensation for the death of her brother since she cannot be said to be an unmarried sister and, therefore, dependent upon the deceased workman. In 1987 Lab I.C. 385 (A. Alice and Anr. v. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Ors.), a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held that half-sister of the deceased workman who was unmarried would fall within the class of dependents recognised under the Act as eligible to claim compensation.
7. In 1977 ACJ 517 (B.M. Habeebullah Maricar v. Periaswami and Ors.), a Full Bench of the Madras High Court had an occasion to deal with the class and category of persons who would be a entitled to claim for compensation on account of the death of a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The learned Judges of the Full Bench, after an elaborate analysis of Section 2(1)(d)(n), Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, held that the benefits under the Act are provided for the workman himself and his dependents specified in the Act and to no others. In that case the Full Bench was obliged to consider the claim in the context of the death during the pendency of the proceeding before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation of the mother of the deceased workman who filed a compensation application and the eligibility or otherwise of the legal representatives of the claimant who filed the claim earlier to be entitled to compensation. A.D. KOSHAL, J., as the learned Judge then was, while repelling the claim of the legal representatives of the dependent mother who filed the application, held as follows:
'A look at this definition of the term 'dependent' would show that it is not intended to benefit all the heirs of a deceased workman, but to embrace only those relations who, to some extent, depend upon him for their daily necessities, so much so that even some of his nearest and dearest ones, viz. sons who have attained majority, married daughters and an illegitimate daughter, whether married or unmarried are excluded if they were not dependent on the worker's earnings, wholly or in part. Kinship coupled with dependency, is thus made the sole criterion for a person to fall within the ambit of definition. And if that be so, there is no reason why the benefit of the Act should go to heirs other than 'dependents' and Section 9 coupled with the definition in Clause (n) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 be given a restricted meaning in derogation of the language used by the legislature. To hold otherwise and to extend the benefit of the Act to the legal representatives of the deceased workman or of the dependents would be to burden the employer with liability not flowing from the subject which the Act sought to achieve and to pass the benefit provided by the Act to persons altogether outside the class contemplated by it.'
8. In 1984 ACJ 295 (Mayfield Estate, Nallakottah v. Krishnan), S. MOHAN, J., as the learned Judge then was, had an occasion to deal with the claim made by the husband for the death of his wife in the course of employment. While dealing with the appeal against an order in which the husband was awarded compensation without considering the question of dependency, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that no one other than a dependent can file a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act and while setting aside the order of the Commissioner for, Workmen's Compensation, remitted the matter for a fresh consideration to the authority below. In coming to such a conclusion, the learned Judge also applied and followed the ratio of the Full Bench in 1977 ACJ 517 (supra) and ultimately held that any claim for compensation by one other than the worker himself, could be only by the dependent of the class/category specified in the Act and not by anybody else. At the same time, the learned Judge, keeping in view the object of the Act and the nature of the legislation being social- welfare legislation, observed that inasmuch as the parties did not concentrate on this issue, and there was no opportunity to let in any evidence in this regard, remitted the matter to the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for fresh consideration including the question as to whether the claimant is a dependent of the deceased worker leaving liberty to the parties to adduce oral and other documentary evidence as they deemed fit.
9. In 1989 (1) ACJ 439 (Assistant Engineer, M. P. Electricity Board and Anr. v. Rajendrasingh Chauhan), a learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, felt the need to enlarge the corpus of the class of dependents as defined in Section 2(1)(d) and observed that it would be even necessary to enlarge the corpus of the dependents by construing the provision liberally to achieve the object of the Act. In our view, the observations of the learned Judge in this case are too wide to commend for our acceptance, in the teeth of the other decisions noticed above. The fact that the right to payment of compensation arise immediately in the injured workman or his dependents and such liability is fastened on the employer automatically, instantly and contemporaneously with the accident, does not permit the Court to legislate by adding to the illustrated category/class of dependants specifically engrafted in the Act itself. In 1998 (1) ACJ 559 (Management, Boys Town Society v. Palani and Anr.), a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court held that the parents of the deceased workman who was unmarried and who were enjoying the benefits of his earning wholly or in part are dependents of the deceased worker and entitled to compensation.
10. Apart from the principles laid down in the decisions reported in 1977 ACJ 517 (supra) and 1984 ACJ 295 (supra), which commends for our acceptance, the reasons assigned therefor are also found to be well merited and unexceptionable, having regard to the very provision of the Act, the Rules made thereunder as also the forms prescribed therefor. The Act provides for the payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen/dependants of workmen who die on account of any injury sustained by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Though the provisions contained in the Act, having regard to the object and laudable purpose, requires to be construed liberally to perpetuate the welfare oriented object of the legislation, the construction cannot be foisted as to rewrite a specific provision made in the Act itself. Though the liability as such is fixed under the provision of the Act contemporaneously, instantly and automatically with the occurrence of the accident resulting in the injury/death of a workman, Section 8 of the Act specifically provides for the manner of distribution of compensation and this provision recognised the principle of payment of compensation in case, of death of a workman to the dependents. Section 22 as also Rule 20 of the rules envisage the filing of the claim applications in the form prescribed with the necessary particulars stipulated therefor. As a matter of fact, Section 22 enacts that no application for the settlement of any matter by the Commissioner other than the application by a dependent or dependents for compensation shall be made unless and until some question has arisen between the parties in connection therewith which could not be settled by agreement and that an application to a Commissioner may be made in such form and shall be accompanied by such fee as is prescribed and shall contain, in addition to any particulars which may be prescribed, certain details about the statement of the circumstances in which the application is made and the relief sought for and the details as to the notice, if any, given and the addresses of the parties. From the forms prescribed in the rules as envisaged in Section 22 and Rule 20, Form F and Form G become relevant. Form F is an application to be made for compensation by the workman himself and the question which should normally arise in such cases for decision as set out below column No. 6, would make it clear that Form F is exclusively prescribed for such a claim by the workman himself. Form G, which is stated to be in respect of an application for orders to deposit compensation, would disclose that the said format has to be adopted necessarily and essentially in the case of the claimant/claimants being dependents of the deceased workman. Column 2 in that form obliges the applicant(s) to state that he or they are dependent(s) of the deceased workman and state further in what capacity, which inevitably necessitates such applicant/dependent(s) to further state apparently as to in what capacity they claim to be the dependent(s) or in what class or category as defined in Section 2(1)(d) they would fall to be dependent(s). The provision contained in Sections 8 and 22, and Rule 20 taken together with the forms prescribed would necessarily and sufficiently prove that the claim for compensation could either be by the injured workman if he is alive for the injuries sustained by him or by the dependants of the class/category stipulated in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act if on account of the injuries sustained the workman dies and it is not given to the authorities functioning under the Act or to the Court dealing with the matters coming under the Act to enlarge or add to the class or category of dependents enumerated under the Act itself.
11. So far as the case on hand is concerned, we find on going through the application filed the format prescribed in Form F appears to have mistakenly adopted though it is not so stated in so many words' in the application itself but it could easily be held to be so with reference to the nature of the claim and disclosures made in the application itself. That in our view accounts for the specific or conspicuous omission to contain details of the nature envisaged in column 2 of Form G which obliges an applicant/dependents) to disclose the nature of the dependency too. Though the appellant Insurance Company has filed a reply objecting to the claim in general terms, there is no specific challenge made to the competency of the applicants vis-a-vis their claim as dependents of the deceased workman. Apparently in the context of such too vague and general claim asserted on either side the authority below had no opportunity to advert itself to the specific issue as to the eligibility of the claim or adjudicate objectively the question of they being any of the stipulated class/category of dependents so as to maintain the claim petition on account of the death of the worker concerned in this case. Keeping in view all these aspects and the fact that in dealing with the social oriented legislation of the nature under our consideration, and the awareness of the claimants who go before the authority under the Act, we are of the view that interests of justice should not be allowed to suffer on account of some lapse in meticulously observing the proper procedural prescriptions and instead in order to ensure that substantial justice is rendered we set aside the order of the authority below and direct the said authority to restore to its file the application already filed with further liberty to supplement it by filing details about the manner or nature of the dependency they claim with further liberty to the respondents before the said authority also to file their reply as they would desire and thereafter enquire into the matter by giving both the parties sufficient opportunity to let in additional oral and documentary evidence to prove their respective stand/claim and decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law.
12. Since the claim was presented as early as in the year 1990, we would further direct the authority below to dispose of the application within four months from the date of the first appearance of the parties before the said authority which is fixed to be June 11, 1999.
13. We observe from the record received from the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation in this case that the amount has been deposited and disbursed also to the claimants on February 15, 1991 even before the matter was entertained on appeal before this Court and the interim order could be passed. The rights of the parties ultimately shall abide by the decision that may be taken by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation pursuant to our order of remand and the said authority shall have all the powers under the Act availed of to enforce restitution, if need be. No costs.