NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BHANUMATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the insurer. Appellant calls in question the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Palakkad in W.C.C. No. 74/2009 by which the Commissioner has awarded compensation in a tune of Rs. 4,39,900/- with interest at 12%. According to the first respondent/claimant, her brother sustained personal injuries in the course of his employment under the second respondent and died. Accordingly, compensation is claimed and awarded.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent (claimant). Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that, the first respondent/claimant is the married sister of the deceased workman, and, therefore, in terms of S. 2(d) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (as re-named) ("the Act" for short) the first respondent cannot be treated as a dependent. He would submit that, an additional written statement is filed specifically raising this issue. He would further point out that, there is no case otherwise for the first respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that, no such contention was raised in the written statement. He would point out that additional written statement is not accepted by the Court. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to a petition seeking permission to file additional written statement as also the additional written statement which is said to have been filed in the year 2009. Undoubtedly, an appeal under S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act can be based successfully on the basis of existence of substantial question of law. We have gone through the cross examination of the first respondent wherein she has categorically admitted that she has been married for 16 years. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute as regards to the fact that the first respondent, though the sister of the deceased workman was married. Under S. 2(d) of the Act which defines the word dependent among others only an unmarried sister who if wholly or in part is dependent on the earnings of the (employee) at the time of his death could claim as a dependent. In this case, there can be no dispute that the first respondent was a married sister. An unmarried sister alone can be treated as a dependent. Therefore, the first respondent cannot claim as a dependent. The matter is also beyond the pale of any doubt in view of the evidence given by the first respondent herself in cross examination that she is married for 16 years.