Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Shri Ramji Jadhav Kahalkar and Smt. Manjulabai Ramji Kahalkar, are the parents of the deceased workman Shriram Kahalkar. They filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation for the death of their son, who died on 28/02/1997 in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with respondent No.2, Rajkumar Prataprai Paryani. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bhandara, dismissed the claim in F.W.C.A. Case No.9 of 1997 on 03/08/2004, holding that the applicants failed to prove that they were dependents of the deceased and that the accident occurred in the course of employment. The appellants appealed to the Bombay High Court. The appeal was admitted on a substantial question of law: whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that the applicants were not dependent on the deceased's earnings when the fact of dependency was specifically pleaded in the application under Section 22 of the Act and was not denied by the respondents in their written statement. The High Court observed that the respondents did not file any written statement denying the dependency, and thus the fact stood admitted. The Commissioner erred in requiring the appellants to prove dependency despite the admission. The Court also noted that the Commissioner failed to consider the evidence on record regarding the accident. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, directing that the admission of dependency be taken into account and that the issue of the accident be decided on merits.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Dependency - Admission by Non-Denial - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Sections 10 and 22 - The appellants, parents of the deceased workman, pleaded dependency in their application under Section 22. The respondents did not deny this fact in their written statement. The Commissioner erred in holding that the applicants failed to prove dependency, as the non-denial amounts to an admission. Held that the Commissioner was not justified in ignoring the admission and shifting the burden of proof onto the applicants (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in holding that the applicants were not dependent on the earning of the workman at the time of his death, when the fact of dependency was specifically pleaded and not denied by the respondents in their written statement.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 03/08/2004 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bhandara, in F.W.C.A. Case No.9 of 1997 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law, taking into account the admission of dependency and deciding the issue of accident on merits.
Law Points
- Admission by non-denial in written statement
- Burden of proof in Workmen's Compensation
- Dependency of parents on deceased workman
- Section 10 and Section 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (08) 178
First Appeal No.211 of 2007
Shri I.S. Charlewar for appellants; Shri V. R. Mundra for respondent No.2; Shri A.M. Quazi for respondent No.4; None for respondent Nos.1 and 3
Shri Ramji S/o Jadhav Kahalkar and Smt. Manjulabai W/o Ramji Kahalkar
The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation / Labour Court, Bhandara; Shri Rajkumar s/o Prataprai Paryani; Shri Krishnakumar s/o Deochand Jain; The Orient Insurance Co. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dismissing claim for compensation
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for death of their son
Filing Reason
Death of workman in accident arising out of and in the course of employment
Previous Decisions
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bhandara, dismissed F.W.C.A. Case No.9 of 1997 on 03/08/2004, holding that applicants failed to prove dependency and that accident occurred in course of employment
Issues
Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that the applicants were not dependent on the earning of the workman when the fact was specifically pleaded and not denied in the written statement?
Whether the Commissioner erred in not considering the admission by non-denial?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that they had specifically pleaded dependency in the application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the respondents did not deny it in their written statement, thus it stood admitted.
Appellants contended that the Commissioner erred in requiring them to prove dependency despite the admission.
Ratio Decidendi
When a fact is specifically pleaded in an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act and is not denied by the respondents in their written statement, it amounts to an admission. The Commissioner cannot ignore such admission and shift the burden of proof onto the applicants. The Commissioner must decide the case based on the admitted facts and the evidence on record.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation was justified in holding that the applicants were not dependent on the earning of the workman at the time of his death, when the aforesaid fact was specifically pleaded by the appellants in the application under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the same was not denied by the respondents in their written statement?
The respondents did not file any written statement denying the dependency of the applicants on the deceased workman. Therefore, the fact of dependency stood admitted.
Procedural History
The appellants filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bhandara, claiming compensation for the death of their son. The Commissioner dismissed the application on 03/08/2004. The appellants then filed the present appeal before the Bombay High Court, which was admitted on 16/04/2007 on a substantial question of law. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 22/08/2013.
Acts & Sections
- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Section 10, Section 22
