LAWS(KAR)-2009-11-70

VIJAYLAXMI Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER

Decided On November 16, 2009
VIJAYLAXMI Appellant
V/S
DIVISIONAL MANAGER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was claimant before the labour officer and Commissioner for workmen's compensation, Bidar District, Bidar, as a second claimant and being the married daughter of one Hanmantredy who was working as a cleaner in lorry bearing No. KA-39/5782 and who it appears had died in an accident that took piace on 23/24.2.2000 had filed the petition for compensation in which claim petition her mother figured as the first claimant and is now befoe this court, in an appeal under section 30(1) of the workmen's compensation Act, being aggrieved with the order of the commissioner as the entire compensation amount was awarded in favour of the wife of the deceased. The sum of Rs.2,76,255/- was exclusively given to the first claimant-the mother of the 3rd respondent in the present appeal.

(2.) APPEARING on behalf of the- appellant Sri Basavaraj R. Math vehemently argued that the appellant's case clearly falls within the scope of sub-clause (iii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the workmen's Compensation Act { Section 2(1) (d) (iii) (c) } and therefore, the claimant – appellant was entitled to share the compensation along with her mother and the award passed by the Commissioner for workmen's compensation is clearly illegal and the same calls for correction in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. To buttress his argument Sri Basavaraj R Math has drawn my attention to the deposition of the mother before the commissioner for workmen's compensation and specific attention was drawn to the desposition of the mother to the effect that the present appellant – daughter was given in marriage about 4-5 months prior to the death of her husband and would therefore submit therefore, that the second claimant (the present appellant) being a married daughter comes within the expression 'married daughter' as it occurs in Section 2(1) (d) (iii) (c) which reads as under:

(3.) IT is not in doubt or in dispute that the appellant had been married at the time of the death of the workman and therefore, the daugther perhaps could have qualified under sub-clause (c) of clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the workmen's compensation Act. But the appellant does not qualify under the provision of law and therefore, if the commissioner has held that the 3rd respondent – mother is entitled for the entire compensation as the sole dependant of the deceased workman, the award is fully in consonance with the provision of law and there is no scope nor need for interference in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.