FA/164219/1988 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1642 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= JIVANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus AJAM ABDULKARIM MALEK - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PM RAVAL for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. MR VIREN G DAVE for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 12/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 27th May, 1988 passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Junagadh in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 6 of 1987, whereby the said FA/164219/1988 2/4 JUDGMENT application was rejected. 2.0. The short facts of the case are :- 2.1. The appellants herein are the legal heirs of deceased Jitendran, who was working in the hotel of respondent no. 2 on daily wage basis. While discharging his duty on 25th September, 1985, some rival groups of Dhandhusar attacked the hotel of respondent no. 2, the deceased received serious injuries and thereafter he succumbed to death. The appellants, have therefore, preferred an application being Workmen's Compensation Case No. 6 of 1987 before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Junagadh for grant of compensation. 2.2. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, rejected the application. Hence, this appeal. 3.0. Heard learned counsel for the parties. From the evidence on record it transpires that the appellants were dependent on the deceased, and the family was maintained from the income of the deceased. This fact can be established from the statement of the appellant no. 1 in his chief-examination that deceased was giving his salary to the appellants and they used the income of the deceased in maintaining the family affairs. Further in FA/164219/1988 3/4 JUDGMENT view of the provisions of Section 2(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, parents are considered to be dependent i.e. if wholly or in part dependent on the earning of the workman at the time of his death. Thus, the Court below has committed an error in rejecting the application on the ground that the appellants are not the dependents of the deceased. 3.1. Having considered the above submissions, the appellants are dependents of the deceased. In my opinion, looking to the evidence on record or his cross- examination and in view of the provisions of the Act, the Court below ought to have granted the compensation to the appellants. 4.0. The deceased at the relevant time was earning Rs.10/- per day [i.e. Rs.300/- per month], as per the evidence on record. Since the deceased was aged 21 years at the relevant time, the factor of 222.71 would be applicable as per the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the appellants shall be entitled for 50% of Rs.300 i.e. Rs. 150/-, totalling to Rs.33,406.50 paise [222.71 x 150]. As the accident has occurred in the year 1985, the appellants shall be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application, till its FA/164219/1988 4/4 JUDGMENT realization. Orders accordingly. 5.0. The application is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/