Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. against an order of the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, granting compensation to the legal representative of a deceased employee. The employee, Madhu, was employed with respondent No.2 and met with an accident on 11/02/2011. He filed proceedings under Section 10 of the Act on 07/05/2012 seeking compensation. During the pendency of these proceedings, Madhu died on 23/07/2013. His elder brother, Maroti, applied to be brought on record as his legal heir. The insurance company opposed this application on the ground that the elder brother was not a 'dependent' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The Commissioner allowed the application and awarded compensation of Rs.4,78,560 with 12% interest per annum. The insurance company appealed. The legal issue was whether a legal representative who is not a dependent can continue proceedings initiated by the deceased employee. The appellant argued that only dependents are entitled to compensation under the Act, relying on Section 8 which provides for distribution among dependents upon death. The respondent argued that the claim was filed by the employee himself and the right to sue survives. The court analyzed the scheme of the Act, noting that Section 10 allows an employee to claim compensation, and Section 8 deals with distribution after death. The court held that the right to sue survives and the legal representative can continue the proceedings. The court distinguished between a claim filed by the employee and a claim filed by dependents after death. It held that Order 22 CPC and Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act apply, and since the right to sue survives, the proceedings do not abate. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commissioner's order.
Headnote
A) Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Legal Representative - Continuation of Proceedings - Section 10, Section 2(1)(d), Section 8 - The issue was whether a legal representative (elder brother) of a deceased employee could continue compensation proceedings filed by the employee during his lifetime, even though the brother was not a 'dependent' under Section 2(1)(d). The court held that the right to sue survives and the legal representative can continue the proceedings, as the claim was filed by the employee himself and did not abate on his death. The distribution under Section 8 applies only after the death of the employee, not to pending claims. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 22 Rule 1 - Abatement - Applicability to Compensation Proceedings - The court held that Order 22 CPC applies to proceedings under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, and since the right to sue survives, the legal representative can be brought on record. (Para 9)
C) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 306 - Survival of Right to Sue - The court noted that under Section 306, all rights of action survive to the legal representative except those specifically mentioned. The claim for compensation is not a personal action that abates. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a legal representative of a deceased employee can be permitted to continue proceedings initiated by said employee during his lifetime for seeking compensation under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment of the Commissioner dated 30/06/2014 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Legal representative can continue proceedings initiated by deceased employee under Section 10 of Employees Compensation Act
- 1923
- even if not a dependent under Section 2(1)(d)
- Section 8 distribution applies only after death
- not to pending claims
- Order 22 CPC and Section 306 Succession Act apply.
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (12) 92
First Appeal No.720 of 2015
Shri A. J. Pophaly for appellant; Shri A. J. Pathak for respondent No.1
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
Madhu @ Mahadev S/o Govindrao Newade (Died) Thr. His next friend/brother, Maroti s/o Govindrao Newade; Shailendra s/o Manoharro Sonwale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against order of Commissioner granting compensation to legal representative of deceased employee.
Remedy Sought
Appellant insurance company sought to set aside the Commissioner's order awarding compensation to respondent No.1, who was the elder brother of the deceased employee, on the ground that he was not a dependent under the Act.
Filing Reason
The employee Madhu filed proceedings under Section 10 of the Act on 07/05/2012 for compensation for an accident on 11/02/2011. He died on 23/07/2013 during pendency. His elder brother applied to be brought on record as legal heir. The insurance company opposed on ground of non-dependency.
Previous Decisions
The Commissioner under the Act allowed the application to bring the legal representative on record and awarded compensation of Rs.4,78,560 with 12% interest per annum on 30/06/2014.
Issues
Whether a legal representative of a deceased employee can continue proceedings initiated by the employee under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, even if the legal representative is not a 'dependent' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The respondent No.1 (elder brother) is not a dependent under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, and therefore cannot claim compensation. Section 8 provides for distribution only among dependents upon death of employee. Relied on various decisions.
Respondent: The claim was filed by the employee himself during his lifetime. The right to sue survives and the legal representative can continue the proceedings. The provisions regarding dependents apply only to claims filed after death, not to pending claims.
Ratio Decidendi
A legal representative of a deceased employee can continue proceedings initiated by the employee under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, even if the legal representative is not a 'dependent' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The right to sue survives and the proceedings do not abate. The distribution under Section 8 applies only after the death of the employee, not to pending claims filed by the employee himself.
Judgment Excerpts
The question that arises for determination in this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the said Act) is whether a legal representative of a deceased employee can be permitted to continue proceedings initiated by said employee during his life time for seeking compensation under Section 10 of the said Act.
The facts lie in a narrow compass.
In the present case, the claim was filed by the employee himself. The proceedings were initiated by him under Section 10 of the said Act. On his death, the right to sue survives and the legal representative can continue the proceedings.
Procedural History
The employee Madhu filed a claim under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 on 07/05/2012 for an accident on 11/02/2011. During pendency, Madhu died on 23/07/2013. His elder brother Maroti applied to be brought on record as legal heir. The insurance company opposed. The Commissioner allowed the application and awarded compensation on 30/06/2014. The insurance company filed the present appeal under Section 30 of the Act on an unspecified date. The appeal was heard and dismissed on 30/10/2015.
Acts & Sections
- Employees Compensation Act, 1923: Section 2(1)(d), Section 8, Section 10, Section 30
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 22 Rule 1
- Indian Succession Act, 1925: Section 306
