This single-judge court dismissed an appeal against an order by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Bareilly, rejecting a claim for a married daughter as not being a 'dependent' under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
No relief; appeal dismissed against the rejection of the compensation claim for the married daughter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 43 of 2022
Appellant :- Smt Kiran Devi Respondent :- Junaid Khan And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ved Mani Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Pawan Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present appeal is directed against the order dated 31.3.2021 passed by Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Bareilly Region, Bareilly by which he has rejected the main petition of claimant-appellant claiming compensation for the death of one Pyare Lal who died in an accident of vehicle no. UP21N6633.
The Commissioner, while deciding the issue no. 3 with respect to maintainability of the claim petition, has held that the claimant is not the dependent in view of the section 2(1) (d) (ii) & 2 (1) (d) (iii) of The Employees's Compensation Act, 1923. It would be apt to reproduce the definition of 'dependent' defined under section 2 (1) (d) (ii) & 2 (1) (d) (iii).
(d) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased employee, namely:--
(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 at the time of his death, (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 if married and a minor or if widowed and a minor, (d) a minor brother or a 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 predeceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or (h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the workman is alive;
In view of the above mentioned definition of 'dependent' it is evident that the
married daughter does not fall under the said definition. Therefore, the claimant's petition on behalf of married daughter is not maintainable under the Employees Compensation Act.
For the reasons given above, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the commissioner concerned in rejecting the claimant's petition. Accordingly, the present appeal lacks merit and is dismissed .
Order Date :- 14.9.2022 Deepika
Digitally signed by DEEPIKA SINGH Date: 2022.11.15 19:04:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a married daughter falls under the definition of a 'dependent' under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
Whether the rejection of the main petition claiming compensation for the death of an employee in an accident was lawful.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kiran Devi
Junaid Khan
Saral Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
