The judgment establishes the importance of proving dependency under the Workmen Compensation Act and emphasizes the interpretation of beneficial legislations in favor of the beneficiaries.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, ( for short ‘the Act’) against the impugned Order dated 30.04.2003 in W.C.No.44 of 2001 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada (hereinafter be referred to as “ Commissioner”.)

Parties before the Learned Commissioner:

2. The appellants herein were the applicants, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein were the Opposite Parties before the learned Commissioner.

Reference of parties in the appeal:

3. For the sake of convenience and understanding, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

The case of the Applicants in nutshell is that:

4. The Applicants are the parents of the deceased late Sambasiva Rao, who worked as driver for the lorry bearing No. ABK 8869 owned by the Opposite Party No.1. The deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident and used to draw Rs.3,000/- per month apart from Rs.50/- towards batta. While he was on duty at Maharastra, he met with an accident on the intervening night of 22/23-1998 at about 1.00 am within the limits of Nagapur Police Station and in the said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries all over the body, which resulted in instantaneous death. Therefore, they sought for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a.,

Contention of Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2:

5. The Opposite Party No.1 remained set ex parte. The Opposite Party No.2 being the insurance company filed Counter denying the averments made in the petition while putting the applicants in strict proof of the mode and manner of the accident, death, employment, age, wage and driving license of the deceased and the insurance coverage of the vehicle.

In Enquiry:

6. During the course of enquiry, second applicant- Nadella Krishnaiah was examined as Aw.1 and Exs. A.1 to A.7 were the documents marked. No evidence is adduced on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.

Finding of the Tribunal:

7. On hearing and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner opined that the applicants failed to prove that they are the dependants on the earnings of the deceased workman. The documents filed do not contain the name of the deceased. As the Opposite Party No.1 i.e., the owner of the lorry is also another son to the applicants, he did not appear before the Court to explain the truth. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner dismissed the said claim petition.

Grounds of Appeal:

8. Having been aggrieved by the impugned Order, the Applicants carried the matter in appeal on the grounds that :

(a) the applicants being the parents of the deceased, who is their unmarried son, are eligible to claim compensation. AW.1 being the father of the deceased categorically deposed that the applicants are the dependants upon the earnings of the deceased and non-mentioning of the dependency in the petition is not a ground for dismissal of the petition since the applicants are illiterate.

(b) As the accident took place at Maharastra, it is mentioned in the First Information Report and Post Mortem Certificate that one unknown male person died and that itself cannot be a ground for dismissal of the claim.

9. Heard both the counsel. Perused the material on record.

10. In the light of rival submission of the parties, the following Substantial Questions are framed in this Appeal :

(a) Whether the learned Commissioner is correct in dismissing the petition only on the ground that the dependency of the applicants being the parents is not mentioned in the claim petition?

(b) Whether the learned Commissioner is correct in holding that the name of the deceased is not mentioned in the FIR and PM Report and therefore, the claim of the applicants has to be discarded?

Arguments at the bar:

(c) Point No.1: Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the applicants are the parents of the deceased Sambasiva Rao. The Opposite Party No.1, who is the owner of the