PASUPATI DUTT Vs. KELVIN JUTE MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant appeals from a decision by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Bengal, whereby the Commissioner declined to award the appellant any sum of compensation in respect of the death of a work-man killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The facts are as follows: On 5 October 1934, one Hari Charan Day, the head engine driver in the Kelvin Jute Mills, was injured at his work. He died on 13 October 1934. The only person who could claim to be dependant upon the deceased within the meaning of the Act was one Kalo Moni Dutt. She was the daughter of the deceased but a widow. She had one son, the appellant, now aged seven years, then aged five years, who lived with her in the house of her father, the deceased workman. On 24 November 1934, the employers, pursuant to Section 8(1) of the Act, deposited with the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, the sum of Rs. 3,500 in respect of their obligations under the Act. On 29th November 1934, Kalo Moni Dutt died leaving the appellant surviving her. On 25 April 1935, the Commissioner heard the application of the appellant (through his uncle) for an award to be made in his favour of the compensation, viz., Rs. 3,500. The Commissioner rejected this application on the ground that no dependant within the meaning of the Act then (i.e., on 25th April 1935) existed. Accordingly he ordered the compensation money to be repaid to the employers under Section 8(4) of the Act.

(2.) The relevant provisions of the Act are as follows: Under Section 2(1)(d) a "dependant" includes a widowed daughter if wholly or in part dependant on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death. (The child of such widowed daughter is not a dependant within the section). Section 3(1) provides that: If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

(3.) There is a proviso, but neither that nor the rest of the section affects the present case. Sub-s. (2) of Section 3, deals with the case of contraction of the occupational diseases. Sub-s. (3) gives the Governor-General in Council power to add to the schedule of occupational diseases. Section 4(1) provides that: Subject to the provisions of this Act the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely: (a) Where death results from the injury.