RUDRAMMA Vs. MARIJOGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by one Rudramma, claiming to be a dependent of deceased Anil Kumar, and the grievance of the appellant is that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, while allowing the claim application filed by the appellant's husband Marijogaiah and son Ravi Kumar, also took note of the fact that the appellant, though not entitled to compensation as a dependent of deceased Anil Kumar, yet, as she happened to be the mother of deceased Anil Kumar, on humanitarian grounds, awarded compensation to the appellant also to an extent of 20% out of the total amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- and the remaining 80% was ordered to be paid to the husband of the appellant i.e., Marijogaiah, it is this order of the apportionment that is called in question in this appeal.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner was in error in giving major portion of the compensation to the appellant's husband and the appellant, being the mother of deceased Anil Kumar, also ought to have been given adequate compensation, at least in the ratio of 60:40 instead of 80:20 and, therefore, the apportionment portion of the order be modified.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent 1-husband submitted that the Commissioner has apportioned the compensation amount of 80:20 between respondent 1 and the appellant even though the appellant is not a dependent because, the appellant married one Shivananda and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled for compensation as a dependent. Yet, taking into account that the appellant is the mother of the deceased, the Commissioner has apportioned the compensation in the ratio of 80:20.