Back
Married Daughter Cannot Continue Pending Compensation Claim Under Employees Compensation Act:
The has delivered a significant ruling on the scope of "" under the , holding that a married daughter cannot be substituted in a pending compensation claim filed by her deceased mother. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi quashed the 's award of ₹6,12,360 with , observing that the to a person who is not a .
A Fatal Accident and a Legal Wrangle
The case originates from a tragic incident on , when Padum Bahadur Soni, an employee of , was fatally crushed when a factory boundary wall collapsed on him during work. His widow, Suraji Bai Soni, filed a claim under . While the proceedings were pending, Suraji Bai died on . Her married daughter, Smt. Nanda Soni, then moved for , which the allowed despite the employer's objection. The later awarded compensation of ₹6,12,360 with 10% from the date of application.
Both parties appealed: the claimant sought enhancement of compensation and , while the employer challenged the of the claim itself.
The Core Dispute: Who is a ''?
The employer argued that Smt. Nanda Soni, being a married daughter, does not fall within the definition of "
" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The provision explicitly includes only an
"
"
as a
, while a married daughter can claim only if she is a
. The employer relied on the
decision in
Amarsai Amar Singh Netam v. M/s N.C. Nehar & Others
(2011 SCC OnLine Chh 183) and a of the to contend that the was void.
On the other hand, the claimant argued that since the original claim was filed by her mother, and the 's order had attained finality, the employer could not now object. She also sought at 12% from the date of accident and , citing the 's rulings in and .
Statutory Definition and Legal Precedent
Examining Section 2(1)(d), Justice Chandravanshi noted:
"A married daughter is not included as a '
' relative under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act 1923, which explicitly includes only an 'unmarried daughter'."
The court distinguished between a case where an award had already been passed (forming part of the ) and a pending claim. Relying on the 's reasoning in
Amarsai Amar Singh Netam
, the court held that since the original claimant died before any award, the to her and did not survive to a non-.
"Had an award been passed in favour of Suraji Bai Soni during her lifetime, the compensation amount would have formed part of her
, and the Appellant could have claimed the same in the capacity of a
. However, since the Original Claimant died during the pendency of the claim proceedings prior to the passing of any award, the cause of action did not survive to the Appellant, who is not a '
' under
,"
the court observed.
and Issues Rendered Academic
The claimant had also argued that the erred in awarding only 10% from the date of application instead of the mandatory 12% from the date of accident, and in not imposing . The court acknowledged that under and the 's decisions, is payable from the date of accident. However, since the entire award was quashed on the threshold question of dependency, the court held that these issues had become purely academic and did not require adjudication.
Final Verdict: Employer's Appeal Allowed
The High Court allowed the employer's appeal (MAC No. 1494 of 2022), quashing and setting aside the 's award dated . The claimant's appeal (MAC No. 1311 of 2022) was dismissed. The court directed that any compensation amount deposited by the employer with the be refunded to the employer.
The judgment reinforces the strict statutory framework of the Employees' Compensation Act, emphasizing that only persons specifically enumerated as "dependants" can prosecute or continue a claim. Married daughters, unless they fall within the narrow exceptions, cannot step into the shoes of a deceased original claimant.
