DHAN DEVI Vs. CHUNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 11th March, 1971 Onkar Singh Mechanic in Hydel Project died during the course of employment. The employer deposited Rs. 7000/- with the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act'). On 29th November, 1976 Dhan Devi mother of the deceased applied to the commissioner for payment of the deposited amount to her as the person entiteld to it. In those proceedings, she impleaded Chuni Lal, her husband as the first respondent and general public as the second respondent. Notice was issued. Chuni Lal admitted the claim of the applicant. No other person came forward to claim in spite of publication in 'Samrat'(weekly. The claimant appeared as AW1 and clearly stated that the deceased, used to give whole of his income to her and she was dependent on him. Her statement was corroborated by Sansar Chand AW2 and Chanan Singh AW3, besides getting support from the statement of Chuni Lal respondent. The Commissioner dismissed the application vide order dated 18th July, 1977 on the technical ground that in the claim petition she had not pleaded that she wholly dependent on the deceased. This was done inspite of the noticing that all the persons who had appeared had stated that she was dependent on the deceased. Feeling aggrieved, she has come to this Court in this appeal.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant I am of the view that this appeal deserves to succeed.

(3.) The Act under which the matter was being considered is a beneficial social piece of legislation and the rigor of technical pleadings is not applicable. Precisely, for the reason Section 22(3) of the Act has provided that if an applicant is illiterate or for any other reason is unable to furnish the required information in writing, the application shall, if the applicant so desires, be prepared under the direction of the Commissioner. When the Commissioner was faced with the absence of specific plea in the application, it would have been better for him to give opportunity to the applicant further to amend her application or to give her assistance in preparing her proper pleas. The additional factor is that the amount has already been deposited by the employer and he had not made any grievance and the Commissioner by himself has declined to pay the amount to her who admittedly is claimant, in the absence of others, vide Section 2(d)(iii)(b) of the Act as she was solely dependent on her son while her husband was living. Once evidence had come on record that she was solely dependent on her son, the absence of specific plea under the scheme of the Act should have been over-looked. On a reading of the statements of the witnesses on record, I hold that the appellant was solely dependent on her son and therefore, is entitled to the deposited compensation.