Back
1987 Supreme(Cal) 340
High Court Of Calcutta
SUKUMAR CHAKRAVARTY, GOBINDA CHANDRA CHATTERJEE
CHARUBALA SAHA - Appellant
Versus
EASTERN RAILWAY ADMN. - Respondent
Appeal 957 Of 1976
Decided On : 09/18/1987
JUTHIKA BOSE, S.R.Mukherjee
The interpretation and application of Section 82C of the Railways Act, 1890, and Section 2(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in determining the timeliness and validity of a compensation claim and the assessment of dependency in such claims.
Headnote:
RAILWAYS ACT, 1890 - SECTION 82C - COMPENSATION CLAIM - DEPENDENCY - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF SECTION 2(D) OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - TIME LIMITATION FOR FILING CLAIM - ASSESSMENT OF DEPENDENCY - CONSIDERATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THE DECEASED - REJECTION OF CLAIM DUE TO DELAY AND LACK OF DEPENDENCY.
Fact of the Case:
Janardan Saha, an employee of the Reserve Bank, died in a train accident. His wife, Sujata Saha, filed a compensation claim under Section 82C of the Railways Act, 1890, within three months of the accident. Janardan's father, Personath Saha, filed a separate claim eight months after the accident, seeking compensation for himself, his wife Charulata, and their unmarried daughter, claiming they were solely dependent on Janardan's earnings.
Finding of the Court:
The Claims Commissioner rejected Personath's claim as time-barred and found that Personath, his wife, and daughter were not solely or partly dependent on the victim's earnings. The court upheld the Claims Commissioner's decision, finding that Personath's claim was filed beyond the prescribed time limit and that there was no evidence to establish their dependency on the victim.
Issues: 1. Whether Personath's claim was time-barred under Section 82C(2) of the Railways Act, 1890? 2. Whether Personath, his wife, and daughter were dependents of the victim within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 82C(2) of the Railways Act, 1890, and held that the Claims Commissioner was justified in rejecting Personath's claim as time-barred since it was filed eight months after the accident without a reasonable cause for the delay. 2. The court analyzed the evidence and found that Personath, his wife, and daughter were not dependent on the victim at the time of his death. The court considered their financial condition, including Personath's income from his property and his sons' earnings, as well as the victim's income and expenses.
Final Decision: The court dismissed Personath's appeal, upholding the Claims Commissioner's decision to reject his compensation claim.
( 1 ) THIS Misc. appeal is directed against the judgement and order dt. 27-2-76 passed by Sri Sital Prosad Chatterjee, the Ad hoc Claims Commissioner, Sealdah in Mis. Judicial Claim Case No. 68 of 1975 whereby the Claim Case preferred by Smt. Sujata Saha, the wife of the victim Janardan Saha for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- had been allowed as against the main respondent the Eastern Railway Administration. The facts of the case in so far those are relevant for our purpose may briefly be summed up as follows :
( 2 ) 0n 29-1-75 the victim Janardan Saha, a Reserve Bank Employee was coming back to his residence at Birhati by a passenger train and in course of his journey, the train met with an accident at Ultadanga road causing the death of Janardan. His wife Sujata Saha one of the respondents filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/- u/s. 82-C of the Railways Act, 1890. This application was filed in April 1975. On 28-8-75. Sujata's father-in-law Personath Saha filed a separate application for himself claiming his own share of the compensation as also one share for his wife Charulata, O. P. W. 7 and also another share for his minor young unmarried daughter on the ground that they were "solely dependent" upon the earning of the victim. The learned Claims Commissioner rejected Personath's claim on two counts. The Claims Commissioner held that Personath's claim was already time barred. And the Claim Commissioner rejected Personath's claim on merits as well holding inter alia that Personath, his wife and daughter were never solely or partly dependent on the earnings of the victim. Personath's application was thus rejected. Being aggrieved thereby Personath has filed this Misc. appeal against the Eastern Railway Administration as also against Sujata.
( 3 ) MR. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing for Personath, the appellant, has frankly conceded before us that he has no grievance whatsoever against the Railway Administration. The Claims Commissioner, according to him, had rightly allowed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of the unfortunate accident resulting in the death of his client's son. According to Mr. Mukherjee that sum of Rs. 50,000/- should have been however apportioned amongst and shared by Personath, his wife and his unmarried daughter. The learned Claims Commissioner, according to him, erred in the matter of granting the total sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of Sujata alone.
( 4 ) WE have heard Mr. Mukherjee in extenso. We could have been assisted better if the Railway Administration or Sujata had represented themselves before us. Unfortunately, we have heard the Misc. appeal ex parte. None appeared on behalf of the Eastern Railway Administration nor on behalf of Sujata.
( 5 ) MR. Mukherjee has first of all invited our attention to S. 82c of the Railways Act which states inter alia that an application for compensation arising out of an accident may be made,- where death has resulted from the accident, by any dependent of the deceased. S. 82c in Sub-Sec. (2) further enacts that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within three months of the occurrence of the accident, but the claims Commissioner may on good cause shown allow any application to be made at any time within one year of such occurrence. In the "explanation" portion of S. 82c it has been laid down that the word 'dependent' has the meaning assigned to it in Cl. (d) of S. 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Now there is no trouble relating to Sujata's application which was filed within three months of the accident in April, 1975. Personath's application however was filed as late as on 28-8-75. This means and implies that Personath's application was filed long eight months after the accident. Evidently, the learned Claims Commissioner was not satisfied with this late filing of the application and as such he denounced Personath's application as time-barred.
( 6 ) MR. Mukherjee has
