NANAK CHAND SHADIRAM Vs. MAHABIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal: from order brought, by an employer against an order, dated 8 April 1933, directing the employer to pay Rupees-393-12-0 only compensation to a widow of one Murli, who it was held died of accident on 26th June 1931 in the employment of the appellant. The facts, are that within six months from the death on 24 August 1931, an application was made to the Collector of Cawnpore by one Mahabir, son of Murli setting out the facts and stating: 3. That on his death Murli left as his heirs. Mahabir, applicant, Hanuman, one widow and, one daughter. 4. That according to Section 3, Clause A, Section 4, Workmen's Compensation Act, the applicant who is the son of the deceased and manager of his family is entitled to receive compensation to the extent of Rs. 510 from the defendant firm.

(2.) A written statement was taken in reply on 7 January 1933. The Collector passed an order on this application stating: The most important issue is whether Mahabir is entitled to claim compensation. He has admitted that he is (now) in his 18 year. This settles the matter so far as Murli is concerned. He may not claim. Now during the hearing an attempt has been made to bring up claims for a widow and two minor children of whom Mahabir has deposed but of whom he said nothing at all in his claim (or the preliminary notice to the employer) and who themselves have not claimed. The question present would be whether they could not be given compensation. No semblance of a sound reason has been shown for not introducing the alleged widow and minors to the Court at an earlier stage leave alone to the employer who may have been moved to pay some compensation if satisfied. In these circumstances, I must and do hold that the claim is time barred, and it is so much so that I shall not extend the time. I reject the claim.

(3.) On the same date an application was filed by Mahabir purporting to be for review under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C., stating that Mahabir was claiming in paras. 3 and 4 of his plaint for other members of the family and asking that the order of that date be set aside and that: the case be decided after taking into consideration paras. 3 and 4 of the plaint.