LIMBI VIBHAG JANGAL Vs. VANITABEN GIRISHBHAI @ GIRIYABHAI GAMIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant herein ­ Society through Secretary against the judgment and award dated 30.03.2012 passed by the learned ExOfficio Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act, Surat in Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Application No.77 of 2004 by which the application preferred by the respondent herein has been partly allowed and compensation of Rs.2,14,765/ has been awarded.

(2.) IT is the case of the respondents herein (original applicants) in the Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Application No.77 of 2004 that respondent no.1 is wife of the deceased and respondent nos.2 and 3 are father and mother of the deceased. Deceased was working as Watchman in the appellant ­ Society since last four years. It is further case of the respondents herein (original applicants) that on 27.04.2004, when deceased was discharging his duty at night hours in the society, at that time, one person came with intention to theft in the society. At that time deceased caught hold of that person and quarrel took place and said person blowed axe on the deceased and thereafter while taking deceased to the hospital, he died. In this regard, complaint is also filed in the Songadh Police Station. Therefore, application was preferred by the respondents herein (original applicants) for compensation. After considering oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner partly allowed the application by award dated 30.03.2012. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) THIS Court has gone through the judgment and award dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act, Surat. So far as contention of the learned advocate for the appellant that no documentary evidence is produced that Vanitaben is wife of the deceased is concerned, it is to be noted that while going through the judgment and award dated 30.03.2012, it appears that complainant ­ Sunilbhai was examined vide Exh.40 and he has specifically stated on oath that first marriage of Vanitaben took place with Manjibhai and after divorce with him, Vanitaben again married with deceased in presence of community members. Merely because, no government record is produced, it cannot be said that Vanitaben is not wife of the deceased. Even other original applicants i.e. father and mother of the deceased did not raise any objection in reference to the marriage of Vanitaben with the deceased. Secretary of the appellant ­ Soceity was examined vide Exh.42 and he has stated that he did not know about the marriage of Vanitaben with the deceased or any other person.