1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR First Appeal No. 519/2004 (The Commissioner, N.M.C. Nagpur & another VERSUS Smt.Fulkabai @ Deokabai wd/o Ganeshlal Kuhikar & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri M.V. Samarth, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 11, 2008. Heard Shri M.V. Samarth, the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation. By the instant appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Nagpur on 29.06.2002 in W.C.A. (F) No.44/2000 directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.1,86,900/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and also 25% penalty. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and have also perused the judgment passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. After considering the material evidence on record, the Commissioner has recorded a categorical finding that the mother of the deceased had clearly proved that her son had met with an accident on 19.01.2000 which 2 arose out of and during the course of his employment with the present appellant and also while he was discharging his duties as a fireman. The Commissioner further recorded a finding that the appellant had failed to prove that the accident was caused on 19.01.2000 due to the negligence on the part of Prabhu. It is, however, submitted on behalf of the appellant that after the death of Prabhu, his wife had been provided employment in the corporation and the wife was also paid all the terminal benefits which accrued on the death of Prabhu. According to the counsel for the appellant, the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation was not justified in granting compensation to the wife and the children of the deceased, Prabhu, specially when the application was filed before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation only by the mother of the deceased by name Fulkabai. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted as the mother and the wife & children of the deceased were all his legal heirs and were, therefore, entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Moreover, the wife and the children of the deceased were parties to the application though they were not the applicants. 3 It is further notable that the appellant had not tendered oral evidence nor had filed any document on record while defending the application. Lastly, it cannot be said that the wife of the deceased was not entitled to any compensation as she was given employment by the appellant in the Corporation after the death of her husband. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this first appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE