'> •.<:y IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGAR AT BILASPUR M.A.IC) N0. s-^- /2007 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS ^^ A^ ^ ^v ^•••"'^\^ y^ RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS liU'IS Ui,i 1] Smt. Shaniyaro Wd/o. Late Kendwaram, Aged about 50 years, 2] Kumari Milanti D/o. Late Kendwaram, Aged about 23 years Both are R/o. Village Jamjhariya, Police Station 8s Tahsil Sitapur, Distt Surguja (CG) VERSUS 1] yl'indal Steel SE Power Limited, ^> /Through: Factory Manager, Gram Patarapali, Police Station Kotara road, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) 2] The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 ^-o-^ctrto /. suBswsaasss-tsiK^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bleShri I.M. Quddusi, J. & Hon^le Shrj Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS M.A.(C»No.1054 of 2007 Smt Shaniyaro and another. Versus Jindal Steel & Power Limited and another. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the appellants. Shri Saif Khan, counsel for respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (08/04/2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by I. M. Quddusi. J. List is being revised. Case called out twice. No one is present for respondent No.1, however learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondent No. 2 i.e. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited are present. Learned counsel for the appellants has pressed the appeal, therefore we have no other option butto proceed against respondent No.1 ex-parte. » (2) This appeal has been filed against the impugned award of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation , Ambikapur, district - Surgio'a (C.G.) dated 10/08/2007 in Claim Case No. 42/W.C.Act/2005/Fatal dismissing the claim petition of the claimants/appellante. Though the compensation has been assessed at Rs.4,33,820/- but the same has been dismissed on the ground that the claimants do not appear to be dependents ofthe deceased. (3) Brief facts of the case, as per the version of the claimants, are that deceased Jugsai was working as Mason and was an employee of non- applicant No.1. On 20/04/2005 deceased along with other labourers was working at gate No.3 of power plant. Mixture machine was kept at place of work and as soon as he came in contact with Uie electricity flowing in the - 2-- mixture machine he died on the spot. Deceased was aged about 20 years and used to get Rs.4,500/- per month. Claimants have claimed compensation ofRs.6,00,000/-. (4) This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law;- 'Whether, widowed mother of a deceased workman who was wholly or in part dependenton his eamings at the time of his death is dependent within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)®ottheAct?" . (5) Learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has referred the definition of the dependent given in sub clause (b) of clause (iij) of Section 2(d) in which dependent has been mentioned as a parent other than a widowed mother, therefore widowed mother i.e. claimant No.1 would not comeunderthe dependents. (6) The definition of dependent given in Section 2(1)(d)(i) shows as under: [(d) "dependent" means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman, namely,- . (i) a widow, minor pegitimate or adopted] son, and unmarried [legitimate or adopted] daughter, or a widowed mother. (7) In clause (iii) of Section 2 (1) (d) the condition has been gh/c^iat if wholly or in part dependenton the eamings of the workman at the time of his death, then a parent other thati a widowed mother would be a dependent, however, since the widowed mother has already been mentioned fully dependent under Section 2 (1) (d) (i) and therefore in clause (iii) it has been excluded as there was no necessity to mention againaboutthesame. ^ ^ -3>- (8) Therefore, widowed mottier is a dependent in view of clause (i) of sub section (d) of Section 2 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and as such the interpretation of the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act that the widowed mother is not dependent under the definition is wrong. (9) In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set-aside the part of the impugned award by which the same has been dismissed. The compensation has already been assessed at Rs.4,33,820/-, therefore ttie widow mother claimant No.1 shall be entitled to get the above compensation along with 12 % simpte interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim before the Conwnissioner Workmen's Compensation Act till its payment is made. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- P.K.Mishra Judge