1 80-fa381-2000.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO.381 OF 2000

New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

having it's registered and head

office at New India Assurance

Building, 87, M.G.Marg, Fort,

Mumbai 23, Divisional Office

at Dhule and Aurangabad

by its constituted Attorney

Shri N.G. Mali, Divisional

Manager, Divisional Office,

Aurangabad

Appellant

Versus

1] Rambhau Nathu Patkar,

age 69 years, occ.Agri.,

2] Sow.Sushilabai Rambhau Patkar,

age 59 years, occ.Household,

Both r/o. Vanjargali, Tq. Sakri,

Dist.Dhule

3] Sau.Sharda Vishvasrao Patil

(Khairnar), age 54 years,

occ.Household, r/o. Neheru

Housing Society, Plot No.14

at Sakri, Dist.Dhule

..Respondents

--

Mr.S.L.Kulkarni, advocate for appellants

Mr.S.B.Talekar, advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2

–-

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

DATE : JANUARY 14, 2015

2 80-fa381-2000.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard both sides.

2]

The only issue in this appeal is, whether the

claimants can be termed as the dependents of the

deceased under the provisions of the Workmen's

Compensation Act.

3]

On the day of the accident, deceased –

Nishikant was driving the jeep on the way from

Dhule to Pimpelner. At that time, a goods truck

bearing registration No.MWQ-2022 dashed the jeep of

the deceased. In the said accident, the deceased

died. The documentary evidence, which was not

controverted, was that the deceased was 27 years

old and was earning Rs.1,500/- per month.

4]

Mr.Kulkarni,

learned

counsel

for

the

appellants, submits that the parents of the

deceased i.e. present respondent nos.1 and 2 were

3 80-fa381-2000.odt

not dependents of the deceased. Respondent no.1 –

Rambhau is the father, who is pensioner and as

such, said couple cannot be called as dependents of

the deceased.

5]

Provisions of Section 2(d)(iii) of the

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, runs as under :-

2(d)“Dependant” means any of the following

relatives of a deceased workman, namely-

(i)

a widow, a minor [legitimate or

adopted] son, an unmarried [legitimate or

adopted] daughter, or a widowed mother;

and

(ii) if wholly dependent on the earnings of

the workman at the time of his death, a

son or a daughter who has attained the age

of 18 years and who is infirm;

(iii) if wholly or in part dependent on

the earnings of the workman a the time of

his death-

4 80-fa381-2000.odt

(a) a widower,

(b) a parent other than a widowed mother,

(c)

a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried

illegitimate daughter or a daughter

[legitimate or illegitimate or adopted] if

married and a minor or if widowed and a

minor,

(d)

a minor brother or an unmarried sister

or a widowed sister if a minor,

(e) a widowed daughter-in-law,

(f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son,

(g) a minor child of a pre-deceased

daughter where no parent of the child is

alive, or

(h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of

the workman is alive

[Explanation. - For the purposes of sub-

clause (ii) and items (f) and (g) of sub-

5 80-fa381-2000.odt

clause (iii), references to a son,

daughter or child include an adopted son,

daughter or child respectively];

6]

Reading of the provisions, thus, would show

that dependent includes a parent or parents and

would be entitled for the compensation.

7]

Here, as per the submission of the appellant,

respondent no.1 – Rambhau is pensioner while

respondent no.2 – Sushilabai was not carrying any

work. In that view of the matter, since the

respondents were dependents as per the definition

as detailed supra, there is no force in the appeal.

8]

Hence, the appeal is dismissed without order as

to costs.

[M.T. JOSHI, J.]

kbp