1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

MFA No.4899 of 2013(WC)

BETWEEN:

1 . SRI ABDUL MUJAHID

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

S/O LATE ABDUL WAJEED.

2 . MUBEEN TAJ

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

D/O LATE ABDUL WAJEED.

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.46

EAST STREET

NEELASANDRA

BANGALORE-47.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADV.)

AND

1 . SRI USMAN SHARIFF

S/O AKBAR SHARIFF

MAJOR IN AGE

RESIDING AT NO.7/27

2

SOUTH STREET CROSS

NEELASANDRA

BANGALORE 47.

2 . IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL

INSURANCE CO LTD

NO.41, KRISTU COMPLEX

2ND FLOOR, LAVELLE ROAD

BANGALORE 560 001

REP BY ITS MANAGER.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.E I SANMATHI FOR R2:

NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S )

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C.ACT

AGAINST

THE

JUDGMENT

DATED:19.10.2012

PASSED IN WCA/BNG-4/FC/CR.16/2011 ON THE

FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER

FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION-4,

KARMIKA

BHAVAN,

BANNERGHATTA

ROAD,

BANGALORE-29, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION

FOR COMPENSATION.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Claimants under

Section 30(1) of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.10.2012 passed

by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation,

Sub-Division-4,

Bangalore

in

WCA/BNG-4/FC/CR-

16/2011.

2.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 4.3.2010, the deceased

Abdul Wajeed succumbed to the injuries sustained in

the accident that took place during the course of his

employment while discharging his duties as an auto

rickshaw driver.

3.

The claimant filed petition before the

Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation seeking

4

compensation for the death of the deceased along

with interest.

4.

On service of summons, the respondents

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied.

5.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the

Commissioner

for

Workmen’s

Compensation

framed the issues and thereafter recorded the

evidence and by impugned judgment, inter alia,

dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved, this

appeal has been filed.

6.

The learned counsel for the claimants

submits that at the time of the accident, claimant

No.2 was unmarried and later she got married and she

has produced Ex.P-10, marriage certificate to prove

that she was unmarried at the time of the death of the

5

deceased. The Commissioner has given a finding that

claimant No.2 is married and she is not dependent

and she is not entitled for compensation. This finding

of the Commissioner is contrary to the materials

available on record. Hence, he sought for allowing the

appeal.

7.

The learned counsel for the Insurance

Company has contended that claimant No.2 is the

daughter of the deceased employee and she was

married at the time of the death of the deceased.

Even if she is unmarried, since she is major, as per

definition of ‘dependant’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the

Act, she is not entitled to file claim petition since she

is

not

a

dependant.

The

Commissioner

after

considering the materials available on record has

rightly rejected the claim petition. Hence, he sought

for dismissal of the appeal.

6

8.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and perused the records.

9.

The appeal is admitted to consider the

following substantial question of law:

“Whether

the

Commissioner

of

Workmen’s

Compensation is justified in dismissing the claim

petition on the ground that claimant No.2 is not

dependent as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Workmen’s

Compensation Act in the facts and circumstances of

the case?

10. It is not in dispute that deceased died in

the accide