Tripura High Court
Sri Uttam Kumar Dey vs The State Of Tripura on 22 March, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 TRI 306
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MFA (WC) 17 of 2015
1. Sri Uttam Kumar Dey,
S/O late Fatiklal Dey, resident of Kariyamura,
P.S. R.K.Pur, District- Gomati, Tripura
2. Sri Priti Ranjan Dey,
S/O late Fatiklal Dey, resident of Kariyamura,
P.S. R.K.Pur, District- Gomati, Tripura
... Claimant-Appellants
- Versus -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Agartala, Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura
2. The Secretary/Commissioner,
Power Department, Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex, Agartala, West Tripura
3. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
B.K. Road, Banamalipur, opposite to Bhuturia Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura
4. The Senior Manager,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Dhajanagar Electric Sub-Division, Udaipur,
District- Gomati, Tripura
... Respondents
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
For the appellant : Mr. PS Roy, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. DC Nath, Addl. GA
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment and Order : 22.03.2018
Whether fit for reporting : NO
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. PS Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. DC Nath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. MFA(WC) 17/2015 Page 1 of 6
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 30 (i)(a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 from the judgment dated 10.08.2015 delivered in T.S. (EC) 20 of 2012 dismissing the claim of the appellants for death of their father namely Fatiklal Dey who died on 20.09.2011 from the accident in the course and out of his employment. The deceased was working as a lineman and on the fateful day of 20.09.2011 when he was working in the line as the lineman suddenly the mainline became live with huge volt. Immediately, the deceased-worker got electrocuted and fell from his position and died instantaneously.
3. The petition seeking compensation under Section 3, 4, 4(1)(a) and 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 was filed by two major sons of the deceased worker. There is no dispute that who filed the petition for compensation being T.S.(WC) 20 of 2012 are the sons of the deceased workers. But the Commissioner of the Employee's Compensation by the judgment dated 10.08.2015 has clearly observed as under:
"The instant case is filed by the claimants as the dependents of their father. Admittedly, the claimants are not minors. The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 does not provide as to who may file an application under the Act on the death of an employee. The definition of dependants as available in Section 2(d) of the Act does not include adult sons of an employee as the dependents".
Consequently, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation under the provision of the Act". MFA(WC) 17/2015 Page 2 of 6 Therefore, no compensation was assessed as the claimants were not competent to get the award. Against the said judgment dated 10.08.2015, this appeal has been filed.
4. Mr. PS Roy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants in order to overcome the said observation as made by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has relied on a decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in Supreme Stone Industries vs. Chunni Bai and others reported in 2017 ACJ 922. In that report, it has been observed that by the appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, the merit can be reassessed within the limited scope, but the said judgment does not shed any light in respect of the definition of the dependants as provided under Section 2(d) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.
5. Mr. DC Nath, learned Additional Government Advocate having referred to the provisions of section 2(d) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 has specifically submitted that unless a person is 'dependant' on the employee/workman who died or suffered serious form of disablement, the workman or the employee or the 'dependant' of him in the event of death, if the accident is proved to be an accident which caused the death or permanent disablement occurred in the course or out of the employment, the right to compensation arises to him or his MFA(WC) 17/2015 Page 3 of 6 dependants. Ordinarily, meaning of the 'Workmen' or the 'Employees' for purpose of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 do not include his/her legal representatives. The definition of the 'Workmen' or the 'Employees' as provided under Section 2(1)(n) of the said Act does not include any heir or the legal representatives. They only include the dependants by virtue of section 2(d) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 [or its former version].
6. By the impugned judgment, the Commissioner of Employees' Compensation has held that under Section 2(d) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, no person other than the dependant in the event of death can claim compensation under Section 3, 4 read with section 10 of the Employees' Compensation Act. The 'dependant' has been defined unequivocally in Section 2(d) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. For purpose of reference, the relevant part of Section 2(d) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is extracted hereunder:
"Dependant" means any of the following relatives of deceased [employee],namely:-
(i) a widow, a minor [legitimate or adopted] son, an unmarried [legitimate or adopted] daughter or a widowed mother; and
(ii) if wholly dependant on the earnings of the [employee] 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 dependant on the earnings of the [employee] 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 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, MFA(WC) 17/2015 Page 4 of 6
(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 [employee] is alive;
[Explanation- For the purposes of sub-clause (ii) and items (f) and (g) of sub- clause (iii), references to a son, daughter or child include an adopted son, daughter or child respectively]."
7. There is no ambiguity, vagueness or any obfuscation in the phrase. On the contrary it has been clearly laid down that the 'dependant' means any of the relatives of the deceased, namely, a widow, a minor (legitimate or adopted son) an unmarried (legitimate or unmarried) daughter or a widow mother. So, far, the legitimate or adopted son is concerned, they shall be minor to be considered as the dependant of the deceased worker/employee under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
8. It is the admitted position in this case that both the claimant-petitioners are adult and they are around 30 years. As such, they cannot be termed as the 'minor son of the deceased employee'. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation had no other alternative, but to dismiss the claim of the claimants, even though they are the legal heirs of the deceased workman/employee inasmuch as they cannot be covered by the definition of 'dependant', as provided under Section 2(d) of the Employees' Compensation Act. MFA(WC) 17/2015 Page 5 of 6
9. For the reasons as stated above, this court does not find any infirmity in the finding as returned by the impugned judgment. As consequence thereof, this appeal stands dismissed.
Draw the decree accordingly.
Send the LCRs thereafter.
JUDGE Saikat MFA(WC) 17/2015 Page 6 of 6