IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY C.M.A. NO : 223 of 2004 Between: 1. Adina Anuradha alias Aatchamma ..... APPELLANT AND 1. M. Pandu Ranga Rao and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY C.M.A. No:223 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 18.9.2003 in W.C.No.65 of 2000 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Vijayawada, wherein the claim of the appellant was dismissed. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondents. Perused the records. The appellant herein filed the claim application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Vijayawada, seeking compensation for the death of the deceased Harinarayana, who was employed as a driver on the lorry bearing No.AP 16U 8424 belonged to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. It is stated that on 10.3.1999 the deceased proceeded to Malda on the lorry and after three days, the deceased died with heart attack in the course of employment. The claimant further pleaded that the deceased was aged about 58 years and was drawing a salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. The learned Commissioner dismissed the claim application on the ground that it was not pleaded nor stated in the evidence that the claimant was dependant on the income of the deceased at the time of his death. It is not disputed that the claimant is the wife of the deceased. The above relationship of the claimant with the deceased is referred to in the impugned order also. Simply because it is not specifically pleaded that the claimant was depending on the income of the deceased, the learned Commissioner ought not to have dismissed the claim application itself when there is no dispute regarding the relationship of the claimant with the deceased and when it is not the case of the opposite parties that the claimant was having alternative source of income or means of livelihood other than the income of the deceased. Having regard to the fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to provide succor to the unfortunate family members in the event of death of the bread winner of the family in the course of employment, the hyper technical approach resorted to by the learned Commissioner is unwarranted. As an authority under the Act entrusted with the duty of adjudicating the claim, the learned Commissioner ought to have adopted more pragmatic and positive approach in dealing with settlement of such claims instead of disposing of the same on technicalities. In these circumstances, it is considered that the matter be remanded to the learned Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law and on merits, after giving an opportunity to both sides to adduce such further evidence as they may like. As the matter is of the year 2000, the learned Commissioner is directed to dispose of the same, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. In the result, the CMA is allowed and the matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Vijayawada. ____________________ Justice G.V. Seethapathy Date: 5th December, 2009 Note: CC in one week (B/o) Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY C.M.A. No:223 OF 2004 05.12.2009