SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Ori) 225

S.C.MOHAPATRA
BALABHADRA PATRA – Appellant
Versus
CHIEF ENGINEER – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.N. Misra and S. Misra, for the Appellant; C. Rath, N.C. Panigrahi and B.K. Nayak and 3, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT :

S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal by the claimants is u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act'), challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner under the Act.

2. No appeal having been preferred the finding regarding the death of the workman in course of employment, his monthly wage, the right of the claimants to compensation and the liability of the employer-respondent to the extent awarded has become final. Accordingly, the facts out of which the claim arose are not necessary to be stated.

3. On the death of the workman, the claimants filed an application in the prescribed Form-G, wherein serial No. 6, it was stated as follows:

"The applicants are accordingly entitled to receive lump sum payment of Rs. 7,000/-."

The Commissioner held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 13,500/- but the claim being for Rs. 7,000/- only the higher amount to which the claimants are entitled is not to be awarded. He confined the award to Rs. 7,000/- only. This part of the order is assailed in this appeal. It is not disputed that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 13,500/-as determined by the Commissioner.

4 The short question, therefore, to be decid







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top