SURESH KUMAR Vs. URMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by the widowed mother of one Jit Singh and his unmarried sister and minor brother challenging the order dated 2.3.1991 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act at Dalhousie whereunder the application filed by the present appellants came to be dismissed holding that the compensation awarded and apportioned among the widow and widowed mother of Jit Singh was valid. It may also be pointed out at this stage that on account of the death of Jit Singh who was said to have been working as a driver in the services of the respondent No. 2 Corporation the matter was reported to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under the provisions of the Act by the Assistant Manager, Equipment Division No.1, Chamera Project, Banikhet vide his reference dated 18.11.87. Thereupon, the parties were said to have been summoned and on going through the representations in the form of material placed the compensation payable has been determined at Rs. 81,192, for which the Management also seems to have no objection. As per the directions contained in the order dated 12.7.1988 the compensation was said to have been deposited by the Management and it was at that stage that the matter was again called by the respondent No. 3 for apportionment. It was at that time that the widow of Jit Singh appears to have verbally stated that she alone is the legal heir and the whole amount has to be paid to her. But at the same time an application was said to have been moved stating that the minor brother and unmarried sister of the deceased, at the time of his death must also be given equal share. It is this claim that came to be considered by the respondent No. 3 in his order dated 2.3.1991 and he ultimately held that the widow and widowed mother alone are entitled to the compensation awarded and the unmarried sister and minor brother of the deceased are only genuine dependants of their mother who have been considered the dependant of the deceased and an order came to be passed accordingly. Hence, the above appeal.

(2.) Ms. Anjali Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, strenuously contended that as the definition of 'dependant' stands in section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, the unmarried sister as also minor brother would be falling within the said definition by virtue of the illustrations contained in clause (iii) (d) and, therefore, the order of the respondent No. 3 is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel at length took us through the two orders passed by the respondent No. 3 and the materials placed on record to show the respective age of the unmarried sister and minor brother of the deceased.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. K.D. Sood, learned counsel while reiterating the reason assigned by respondent No. 3 contended that the same is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and that in any event in the absence of any materials whatsoever on record to prove their entitlement in law no substantial question of law within the meaning of section 30 of the Act could be said to arise so as to call for a decision in this regard by way of interference with the order of the respondent No. 3 apportioning the compensation awarded among the widow of the deceased and his widowed mother.