The main legal point established in the judgment is that the legal representative of a deceased dependant, as defined under S. 2(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, is entitled to prosecute the claim for compensation under the Act.

VENKATACHALIAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'act', is by the employer and is directed against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, kolar Sub Divn, Robertsonpet, KGF dt. 19-4-1975 in Case FC. 19/74 on his file awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,800 in respect of the death of a workman, George by name, employed by the appellant.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed that the death, which occurred in an accident of electrocution, was in the course of the deceased's employment. His melhar bhngyam preferred a claim before the Commissioner for workmen's compensation against the present appellant as well as the Bharat Earth Movers ltd. The latter having questioned its liability in MFA. 360 of 1973, this court in the said proceedings held that Bharat Earth Movers Ltd, was not liable and the liability, if any, was on the present appellant, pursuant whereto the Commr proceeded to award the said compensation of Rs. 4,800 holding appellant liable.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the said proceedings Bhagyam, claimant, died and one Thangaraj, claiming to be her brother, sought to get himself impleaded in the proceedings as her legal representative. The Commr has held that the said Thangarai is entitled to the compensation in the case. This decision is questioned in this appeal.

( 4 ) THE only point urged by Sri Kasturi, the learned Counsel for the appellant, is that a claim under the provisions of the Act could be prosecuted only by and at the instance of a 'dependant' as defined in 3. 2 (d) of the Act. According to him, the right, is a personal right and confined to the 'dependants' enumerated in the section and as the right is a creature of the Statute, no person other than those answering the description of a ' dependant' as defined in S. 2 (d) of the Act could prosecute the claim. On this reasoning it is urged that after Bhagyam died, no. other ' dependent' within the meaning of that expression having come forward and the said thangaraj, admittedly, not being a 'dependant', the proceedings abated and the amount in deposit became refundable to the appellant.

( 5 ) THE question that, therefore, arises in this appeal is whether when a 'dependant' as defined under S. 2 (d) of the Act, who preferred a claim, died during the pendency of the proceedings, his or her legal representatives could prosecute the claim for compensation.

( 6 ) THERE is authority for the proposition that where the sole dependant of the deceased died even without having made a claim before the commr, the right of the dependant passed to his or her executor. The legal basis for this position is that the right remained vested in the dependant to the time of his or her death and upon death passed to his or her heirs or jegal representatives. See United Collieries Ltd. , v. Simpson, 1909 AC 383.

( 7 ) IN Pasupati Dutt v. Kelvin Jute Mills, AIR. 1937 Cal 485. a Bench of the Calcutta High court, consisting of Derbyshire, C. J. and B. K. Mukherjea J. , after referring with approval to the said decision in United Collieries Ltd. v. Simpson (1) stated: (Per Derbyshire C. J.):"here the only person in the class of dependants at the death of the workman was the applicant's mother. Consequently the right to the compensation money vested in her. It was not competent in my view for the Commr to divest her of that right. Therefore it remained vested in her to the time of her death. Upon her death the right passed to her heirs or legal representatives subject to the conditions of the Succession act being complied with. In my view 'dependant' in S. 8 includes the heirs or legal representatives of the dependant as defined by S. 2 where the dependant has died since the death of the workman. It is noteworthy that in the English Workmen's Compensation Act of 1925, which replaced the Act of 1906, it is provided in S. 2 (3) : 'where a dependant dies before a claim under this Act is made, or if a claim has bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document