DAMU RAMA SONAWANE Vs. SAYYED YOUSUF SAYYAD JALALUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE old parents, father and mother of the deceased son, are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dt. 24th April, 1990, dismissing their application, numbered as Application (WC) No. 1/1988, claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, from the employer - respondent no. 1 of the deceased, and the Insurance Company, the respondent no. 2, for the accidental death, which occurred during the course of and arising from the employment of the deceased, who was employed by the respondent no. 1 as a Cleaner, who was physically working on the truck owned by respondent no. 1 and, who died in the accident, which took place on 5-5-1987 on the way from Ahmednagar to Bombay, at Khopoli. The parents have claimed an amount of Rs. 44,800/ - towards compensation and other consequential reliefs provided under the Act, such as penalty and interest on the amount of compensation. The parents have further averred that their deceased son was drawing a sum of Rs. 500/- per month, as his wages, from the respondent no. 1. They have further averred the age of their deceased son 20 years at the time of his death. Before filing the claim application, they had issued a notice to the respondents claiming compensation for the death of their son which took place in the accident, in the course of and arising from his employment. There was no reply from the respondents and, therefore, the present application was filed by them. The respondent no. 1 employer filed his written statement, admitting the factum of employment of the deceased with him for a monthly wages of Rs. 500/ -. He further admitted the fact of accidental death of the deceased and also pointed out that the vehicle was fully insured with the respondent no. 2 and, therefore, the entire liability to pay the compensation was on the shoulder of the respondent no. 2, the Insurance company. He, therefore prayed that, as far as he is concerned, the application should be dismissed. The respondent no. 2, in its written statement, denied the relation between deceased and respondent no. 1 the employer. The respondent no. 2 further denied the fact of payment of wages and also the dependency of the appellant on the deceased. The Insurance Company hence sought dismissal of the application against them too.

(2.) ON the basis of the pleadings, learned Commissioner framed and answered following issues:in effect, it was held by the learned Commissioner that the fact of accidental death of the deceased son of the claimants -appellants - was proved but he answered in negative the second issue as to whether the appellants were entitled to get compensation.

(3.) I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellants but, I did not have benefit of hearing the Advocate for the respondents. The respondent no. 1 has absented himself, though served duly by this court. For the respondent no. 2, however, none has appeared for them. On behalf of the appellant, the father of the deceased had adduced his evidence and affirmed on oath whatever that was stated in his application. He corrected the age of the deceased as 25 years at the time of the accident. In paragraph 3 of the evidence he has specifically sworn on oath that both the appellants were dependent on the income of the deceased son. In his cross examination, a question appears to have been put to him which he answered as under: