IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.64 OF 2006 Date:10-03-2011 Between:- Bathula Ramanamma .. Appellant/petitioner And Sri Praveena Raw and Boiled Rice Mill, Peda Cherukuru and another. .. Respondents/Respondents JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82(2) of Employee’s State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, ‘the Act’) is directed against order dated 14-11-2005 in E.S.I.O.P.No.96 of 2003 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder and whereby, claim of the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as dependant of the deceased Katuru Krishnamma, a workwoman employed by the first respondent, was dismissed. 2. The appellant is the petitioner and the respondents are the respondents in the E.S.I.O.P. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the lower Court. 3. The factual aspects of the case are that the said Katuru Krishnamma, having received injuries in an accident, died on 10-07-2000 while working as workwoman in the first respondent-Rice Mill at Nellore following which the claim was made by the appellant/petitioner for the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- by virtue of Section 2 Clause (6A) of the Act, which the respondents questioned on the ground that the appellant/petitioner was already married by the date of death of the deceased person and she was not depending upon the deceased person and as such, she would not be entitled to the compensation claimed within the ambit of the said provision. 4. On behalf of the petitioner, she got herself examined as P.W.1 and two others were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 and A-2. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. 5. Examining the material available, the lower Court dismissed the petition. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred. 6. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to whether the petitioner would fall within the ambit of Section 2 Clause (6A) of the Act so as to pay the benefit to her and whether the lower Court examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the order passed by it is sustainable or not. 7. No representation has been made on behalf of the respondents and hence, the respondents’ side arguments are closed. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 2 Clause (6A) (iii), a dependant means a person who depends on the earnings of the deceased either wholly or in part at the time of his death and therefore, being the daughter of the deceased, she must be depending upon the deceased either wholly or in part one way or the other and therefore, the findings of the lower Court to the effect that she was not a dependant of the deceased to pay the compensation is not tenable. 9. Section 2 Clause (6A) of the Act defines ‘dependant’ as hereunder: (6A) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased insured person, namely (i) a widow, a minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmarried legitimate and adopted daughter; (ia) a widowed mother; (ii) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the insured person at the time of his death, a legitimate or adopted son or daughter who has attained the age of eighteen years and is infirm; (iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the insured person at the time of his death, (a) a parent other than a widowed mother, (b) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter legitimate or adopted or illegitimate if married and a minor or if widowed and a minor, (c) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor, (d) a widowed daughter- in- law, (e) a minor child of a pre- deceased son, (f) a minor child of a pre- deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or (g) a paternal grand- parent if no parent of the insured person is alive; 10. Section 2 Clause (11) of the Act defines ‘family’ as hereunder: (11) " family" means all or any of the following relatives of an insured person, namely (i) a spouse; (ii) a minor legitimate or adopted child dependent upon the insured person; (iii) a child who is wholly dependent on the earnings of the insured person and who is (a) receiving education, till he or she attains the age of twenty- one years, (b) an unmarried daughter; (iv) a child who is infirm by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury and is wholly dependent on the earnings of the insured person, so long as the infirmity continues; (v) dependent parents. 11. Section 52 of the Act deals with the dependant’s benefit as hereunder: 52. Dependants' benefit: (1) If an insured person dies as a result of an employment injury sustained as an employee under this Act (whether or not he was in receipt of any periodical payment for temporary disablement in respect of the injury) dependants' benefit shall be payable at such rates and for such periods and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government to his dependants specified in sub- clause (i), sub- clause (ia) and sub-clause (ii) of clause (6A) of section 2. (2) In case the insured person dies without leaving behind him the dependants as aforesaid, the dependants' benefit shall be paid to the other dependants of the deceased at such rates and for such period and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 12. It is pertinent to note here that the provisions enumerated above make it very clear that the question of dependency of the petitioner either wholly or in part should be the criteria for the purpose of extending the benefit of paying the compensation to her under the provisions of the Act. In other words, if she was not dependant upon the deceased either wholly or in part, she would not be entitled to such benefit. For this, it is necessary to record evidence, as it is purely a question of fact to be decided. It seems no evidence was recorded either on behalf of the petitioner or on behalf of the respondents in this context. 13. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not an employed person and her husband is a labourer and in fact, she used to depend upon her father for her livelihood either wholly or in part which in fact is to be ascertained for the purpose of extending the benefit to her. When there is no evidence recorded to that effect, it is necessary to see that the matter is remanded to the lower Court for the purpose of providing opportunity to both the parties to adduce necessary evidence in order to determine the question of dependency of the petitioner on the deceased. 14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order and decretal order dated 14-11-2005 in E.S.I.O.P.No.96 of 2003 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore and the matter is remanded to the lower Court with a direction to give opportunity to the petitioner to adduce necessary evidence to establish her dependency on the deceased and then, to give opportunity to the respondents to adduce necessary evidence to rebut the claim of the petitioner. Further, as the matter has become very old, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________________​_____ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 10th March, 2011 AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.64 OF 2006 Date:10-03-2011 AMD