NIRANJAN BAPUSINGH Vs. GHANSHYAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri S. S. Samvatsar, for the appellants. Shri B. N. Barania, for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The appellants are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the award which has been passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Mandsaur in the matter of Case No. MCF 13/93 by which he dismissed the claim preferred by the appellants for getting compensation on account of death of deceased Babusingh @ Raghuvirsingh. The appellants averred that deceased Babusingh @ Raghuvirsingh was working in the slate pencil factory belonging to Bal Mukund and while serving as such he suffered a disease known as silicosus which resulted in his death somewhere in the year 1983. A petition was preferred for claiming compensation on account of his said accidental death.

(2.) AFTER ding dong battle, lastly the present award has been passed by which the claim preferred by the appellant has been dismissed as it suffered infirmity on account of non-issuance of notice in view of provisions of section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as Act ).

(3.) SHRI S. S. Samvatsar, counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the Commissioner has not considered provisions of section 10 and section 10 (l) (b) of the Act properly. He submitted that the evidence of Rukminibai and Kailash was proving that on the next day of the death of deceased Babusingh, Bal Mukund, the owner of the said factory had come to the residence of Babusingh with sum of Rs. 1,000/- which he wanted to offer to the parents of deceased Babusingh as compensation on account of death of Babusingh. Shri Samvatsar further submitted that the said visit of Balmukund was showing that he had notice of said accident and, therefore, the Commissioner was in error in dismissing the claim of the appellants in view of provisions of section 10 of the Act. Shri Samvatsar further argued that the Commissioner should have held that the infirmity of not issuing the notice was a condonable thing in view of the evidence of Rukminibai and Kailash. He finally prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be awarded properly to the appellants or the matter be remanded to the Commissioner for retrial.