GOPAL DAS NANDY Vs. ALLADI BIBEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal, dated the 27th December, 1964 (? ). The facts are briefly as follows :

(2.) AN application was filed by one Alladi Bibi, mother of Ouladi Khan, under the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act") for a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,000/- against Gopal Das Nandy and Gobinda Das nandy, heirs and legal representatives of one Akshay Kumar Nandy, since deceased. The case of the petitioner is that Ouladi Khan, her son, was a painter mistry. One Abdul Oudad Khan took Ouladi Khan to help him in a painting job a the Kannagar house, said to belong to the said Akshoy Kumar Nandy, deceased and while he was working at a scaffolding from a height of over 20 feet, fell down and died. The lady first of all filed a case against the said Abdul Oudad Khan but the claim failed because there was no cause-of-action, and later on this application was filed against the heirs and legal representatives of Akshoy Kumar Nandy who had since died. We need not trouble ourselves in this appeal with the question of limitation because that point has not been pressed before us. The points that have been pressed are two in number. Firstly, as to whether there was any cause-of-action against the two sons of Akshoy Kumar Nandy, deceased, since it is said that the house was a part of the debut tar estate belonging to the Hindu deity, Sri Radha Govind Jew, and the second, point advanced is that the deceased was not a "workman" as defined in clause (n) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the said Act. As regards the first point, the position is as follows : The said Sri Akshoy Kumar Nandy, by an Indenture dated 6th December, 1949, Ext. 'a' in the case, dedicated premises No. 13 Grand Trunk Road, subsequently re-numbered as premises No. 7. Grand Trunk Road, Konnagar, to the said deity. Admittedly, the deceased when he met his death was working at premises No. 5, Grand Trunk Road. The question is whether it has been proved that premises No. 5, Grand Trunk Road belonged to the deity and not to the appellants. A number of Municipal Tax Bills, Exts. 'b' to 'b (7)' have been filed, which are stated to be the municipal bills in respect of the said premises and it is stated that they show that the premises belonged to the debuttar estate. The tax bills do contain a reference to the figure 5 but it is against a heading which shows that it is a number in form No. 1. As form No. 1 is the budget estimate of the Municipality, it is not at all clear what this figure represents. Most probably it represents the number of the premises and has been put against the wrong heading. However, we agree with the commissioner that it has not been proved to the satisfaction of the Court that premises No. 5, Grand Trunk Road, konnagar, is a property which has been dedicated to the said deity. The appellant Gobinda Das Nandy gave evidence and proved Exts. 'b' to 'b (7)' and said that premises Nos. 5 and 5a, Grand Trunk Road, Konnagar, belonged to the deity, Radha Govind Jew. As I have stated above, these exhibits do not show satisfactorily that premises No. 5 is part of the debuttar estate. With regard to their other properties, he gave the following evidence:

(3.) THE only other evidence which is relevant on this point is the evidence of S. K. Ghose, the Station Officer of the Konnagar Fire Brigade Station, who occupies premises No. 5a, Grand trunk Road, as a tenant since 1956.