Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 3897
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.R. Shivakumar, J.
J. Rajasulochana @ Jothi and Another
Versus
Mehapoop Bai Rice Mill, Pootai Village and Post, Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District
C.M.A. No. 1461 of 2001 and C.M.P. No. 2984 of 2007
Decided on : 29th October, 2008.
A. Shanmugaraj, for Appellants
A.G. Rajan, for Respondent
The burden of proof lies with the claimants to establish their entitlement to make a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the court will not entertain a claim unless the claimants prove their relationship and dependency on the deceased.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation Act - Claim Petition - Sections 10(1) and 4(A) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 10(1), 4(A)(1), 4(A)(2), 10(A), and 4(4) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision on the maintainability of the claim petition and the burden of proof on the claimants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a claim for compensation for the death of Jayaraman, alleging that he died in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the respondent. The claim was dismissed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II, and the appellants appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to prove their relationship with the deceased and their dependency on him, leading to the dismissal of the claim petition. The court also rejected the appellants' attempt to produce additional evidence to support their claim.
Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the claim petition and the appellants' failure to prove their relationship and dependency on the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in case of fatal accidents, only the dependents can prefer a claim for compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The burden of proof lies with the claimants to establish their entitlement to make such a claim and prove their locus standi to prefer the claim.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and the application, with no order as to cost.
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II/Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II, Chennai 600 006 dated 4.4.2000 made in W.C. No. 20 of 1999 dismissing the claim of the appellants herein/applicants made against the respondent herein for compensation for the death of one Jayaraman.
2. The appellants herein preferred a claim on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II/Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II, Chennai-600 006 under Sections 10(1) and 4(A) of the Workmen's Compensation Act praying for an order directing the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation together with penalty and interest from the date of accident. The appellants in the claim petition had contended that first appellant was the wife and the second appellant was the daughter of the deceased Jayaraman; that the said Jayaraman was employed as a machine operator in the rice mill of the respondent/opposite party and was getting a sum of Rs. 150/- as daily wages; that on 13.7.1998 at about 2.00 p.m, while he was operating the machine in the rice mill of the respondent/opposite party, he fell on the conveyor belt and consequently died due to shock and haemorrhage; that the deceased Jayaraman was aged about 32 years at the time of his death and that since he died in an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment under the respondent/opposite party, the respondent/opposite party was liable to pay compensation to the appellants/applicants being the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased Jayaraman. The appellants/applicants had quantified the compensation and prayed that an order directing the respondent/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation together with penalty and interest should be passed in their favour.
3. The claim was resisted by the respondent herein/ opposite party by filing a counter statement containing the following averments:
(a) There was no connection between the deceased Jayaraman and the respondent/opposite party at any point of time. There was no employer-employee relationship as claimed by the appellants/applicants in their petition. The petition averments to the effect that the Jayaraman met with an accident arising out of and in the course of employment under the respondent/opposite party is totally false and imaginary one. As there was no jural relationship of employer and workman between the respondent/opposite party and the deceased Jayaraman, the respondent/opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as compensation either to the appellants/applicants or to any other person. Apart from the fact that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the respondent/opposite party and the deceased Jayaraman, the appellants/applicants are not wife and daughter as claimed by them. They are totally strangers and hence the claim petition preferred by them is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
(b) Based on the above said pleadings made in the counter statement, the respondent herein/opposite party had prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The lower authority namely, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II), Chennai-600 006 conducted an enquiry in which, including the first appellant, two witnesses were examined as A.W.1 and A.W.2 and seven documents were marked as Exhibit A-1 to A-7 on the side of the appellants herein/ applicants, whereas respondent herein/opposite party examined himself as the sole witness (R.W.1) and marked Exhibit R-1 as the sole document on his side.
5. At the conclusion of enquiry, upon a consideration of the evidences, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II), Chennai-600 006 came to the conclusion that the petition claiming compensation for the death of Jayaraman was not maintainable as the appellants/applicants were not able to prove their
