The main legal point established in the judgment is that the legal representative of an injured employee who has initiated proceedings for compensation but has subsequently expired is entitled to continue the proceedings and receive the compensation amount.

The question that arises for determination in this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the said Act) is whether a legal representative of a deceased employee can be permitted to continue proceedings initiated by said employee during his life time for seeking compensation under Section 10 of the said Act.

The facts lie in a narrow compass. One Madhu was employed with the respondent No.2 and during the course of employment, he met with an accident on 11/02/2011. On 07/05/2012 said Madhu filed proceedings under Section 10 of the said Act seeking compensation on the ground that the accident in question had arisen out of and in the course of employment. During pendency of said proceedings, the claimant Madhu expired on 23/07/2013 and his elder brother in the capacity as his legal heir applied for being brought on record. Said application was opposed by the appellant on the ground that the elder brother of the deceased was not a dependent in terms of provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act. Said application was allowed and by the impugned judgment dated 30/06/2014, the learned Commissioner under the said Act granted compensation of an amount of Rs.4,78,560/- with interest @ 12% p.a. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

2. Shri A. J. Pophaly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the respondent No.1 who was the elder brother of the employee concerned was not a “dependent” as per the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act, no amount of compensation could have been awarded in aforesaid proceedings. It was submitted that the provisions of the said Act recognise the entitlement only of a dependent to claim compensation. As the respondent No.2 was not a dependent as per provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act, he could not have been awarded any compensation. Relying upon provisions of Section 8 of the said Act, it was then submitted that in case of death of an employee, the amount of compensation has to be distributed amongst the dependents and the elder brother of the deceased employee not being covered under definition of the expression “dependent” as per Section- 2(1)(d) of the said Act, the claim could not have been allowed. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions :

(i) B. M. Habeebullah Marciar v. Periaswami & ors., 1977 A.C.J. 517

(ii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mst. Param Pal Singh, (2008) ACC 515

(iii) Mayfield Estate Nallakottah, Nilgiris v. Krishnan, 1984 A.C.J. 295

(iv) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rana Dev Sutradhar & ors. III (2007) ACC 313 (DB)

(v) Gopal Synthetics v. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kota and ors., 1994 LAB. I.C. 1968

(vi) Sureshkumar and ors. v. Smt. Urmila and ors., 1999 LAB. I. C. 2872

(vii) Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Rourkela v. Shyam Bahadur Singh and ors., 2003 LAB I. C. 598

(viii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sharanappa and anr., 2007 ACJ 2466

3. Per contra Shri A.J. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment. According to him the respondent No.1 had been brought on record in the capacity of legal representative of the deceased employee and not as a dependent. According to learned counsel, if the employee had died in the accident, only then a dependent as defined by Section 2 (1)(d) of the said Act could claim the compensation. The present was a case where an injured employee had himself filed proceedings for compensation and he had expired more than a year after filing said proceedings. Referring to provisions of Section 8(6) of the said Act, it was urged that compensation could also be paid to a person not being a dependent who was otherwise entitled to the same. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the amount as awarded by the learned Commissioner was by treating the respondent No.1 as legal representative of the deceased employee and hence there was no reason