UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MANGALOKE Vs. HARINAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the insurance company to challenge the Order dated 22-10-1993 in case No. Wca/cr-79 of 1980-81 passed by the labour officer and commissioner for workmen's compensation, dak- shina kannada sub-division-i, mangalore, whereunder while allowing the claim of the respondent 1, the labour officer and commissioner for workmen's compensation had awarded a sum of Rs. 21,000/- together with interest at 6% p. a. payable by the respondent 1-employer and the appellant-insurance company.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company, Sri chinnappa k. Kambeyananda and the learned counsel for the respondent 2, Sri s. s. sripathy. The respondent 1 having been served with notice in the appeal, had remained absent.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company, Sri chinnappa k. Kambeyananda while taking me through the facts of the case and further urging the solitary ground in the appeal memorandum argued that the impugned award passed by the commissioner is totally opposed to law and therefore is liable to be set aside by this court in allowing the instant appeal. He pointedly argued that the respondent 2 herein who had filed a claim petition before the labour officer and commissioner for workmen's compensation, dakshina kannada sub-division-i, mangalore (henceforth in brief as 'commissioner') was not at all entitled to maintain the same as she was not a dependant as defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth in brief as the 'act' ). He had drawn my attention to the averment made in para 5 of the claim petition, wherein it had been averred by the respondent 2 that the deceased had no parents, sister or brother and she was the sole surviving dependant of the deceased and that she was entitled to for compensation. Sri kambeyananda has taken me through the definition of the dependant as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the act. He pointed out that the respondent 2 before the commissioner was only an aunt (sister of the mother of the deceased) and that an aunt does not occur anywhere therein to be termed as a 'dependant'. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned award passed by the commissioner be set aside by absolving the liability of the respondent 1-employer as well as the liability of the appellant-insurance company.