BADAN BAI Vs. BHOM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 30 (1) (c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act against an order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner distributing compensation amongst the dependants of the deceased workman.

(2.) THE relevant facts are these. M/s. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. , reported to the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner that a workman named Vijay Singh son of Bhom Singh had died on 30-1-63 as a result of an accident during the course of his employment. On 4-2-63 Vijay Singh's widow Smt. Badan Bai filed a claim before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under Section 10 of the workmen's Compensation Act. Another claim xvas filed on 25-2-63 by the workman's father Bhomsingh who claimed that he was dependant on Vijaysingh. On 4-5-63 a sum of Rs. 2400/- was deposited by the employer with the workmen's Compensation Commissioner under Section 8 (1 ). The Commissioner held an enquiry as to who were the dependants of the workman and came to the finding that besides Smt. Badan Bai--the widow and Bhomsingh the father, Chhatar Kuar--the mother and Roopsingh and Chhotesingh--the minor brothers of the deceased were also his dependants. He accordingly awarded Rs. 800/- as compensation to Smt. Badanbai and Rs. 1600/- to Bhomsingh, Smt. Chhatar Kuar, Roopsingh and Chhotesingh. Against that order Smt. Badanbai has filed the present appeal. On her behalf it is contended mat no amount could be paid to Smt. Chhatar Kuar, Roopsingh and Chhotesingh by the Commissioner out of the money deposited as compensation by the employer as they had not filed any claim under Section 10.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents on the other hand it is argued that there is nothing in the Act to debar the Commissioner from making payment to the dependants who had not filed any application under Section 50. Reliance is placed on Rule 8 (3) of the Rajas-than Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1960 which runs as follows :--