Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Raziyabee and Shaikh Sattar, are the parents of deceased Shaikh Mukhtar, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 6 March 2006 while driving a jeep belonging to respondent no.1, Surrendra Sangle, in the course of his employment. The parents filed a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, seeking compensation under Section 4(1)(a). The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hingoli, dismissed the petition by judgment and award dated 22 March 2010, primarily on the ground that the petitioners failed to prove that they were dependents upon the income of the deceased. The parents appealed to the High Court. The High Court framed a substantial question of law under Section 30 of the Act: whether the Commissioner erred in not holding the parents as dependents in view of Section 2 of the Act. The court answered in the affirmative. It noted that the Commissioner had decided all other issues in favor of the claimants except the issue of dependency. The court held that under Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, parents are expressly included as dependents, and no further proof of actual dependency is required. The Commissioner's finding was erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and award were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner to determine the quantum of compensation in accordance with law. The court directed the Commissioner to decide the matter within three months from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Dependency - Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(b) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Parents as Statutory Dependents - The Commissioner dismissed the claim on the ground that parents failed to prove dependency on the deceased's income. The High Court held that under Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(b), parents are included as dependents without requiring proof of actual dependency. The finding of the Commissioner was erroneous and set aside. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Judge Senior Division and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act has erred in law in not holding the parents of the deceased as dependents in view of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 22.3.2010 set aside. Case remanded to Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hingoli to determine quantum of compensation in accordance with law. Commissioner to decide within three months from date of order.
Law Points
- Parents are statutory dependents under Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- no proof of actual dependency required
- Commissioner's finding erroneous
