Jharkhand High Court
92 Road Construction Coy (Gref) Pin ... vs Ruben Beck S/O Late Benedik Beck on 23 April, 2018
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2334 of 2010
-------
92 Road Construction Coy (GREF) PIN 930092 C/o 99 APO through its EE (Civ), Officer Commanding through Sanjay Kumar EE (Civil) Officer Commanding 92 RCC, GREF.
... Petitioner Versus
1. Ruben Beck s/o Late Benedik Beck,
2. Ashok Beck s/o Late Benedik Beck, Both resident of Village Komro Sikri, P.O., P.S. Dumri, Dist. Gumla.
... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Singh, C.G.C For the Respondents : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
-------
05/23.04.2018 The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 03.03.2001 passed in Succession Case No. 50 of 2000 by which succession certificate for receiving compensation has been issued in favour of the respondents-Ruben Beck and Ashok Beck.
2. On death of the employee-Christopher Beck in a motor accident on 12.07.1998 in course of his employment, the petitioner-organisation deposited an amount of Rs. 1,37,312/- as the amount of compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Parents of the deceased employee had predeceased him. When a claim was raised by brothers of the deceased employee, it was resisted by the petitioner-organisation on the ground that brothers of the deceased being major are not entitled to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as they do not fall within the definition of dependant as defined under Section 2(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
3. Brothers of the deceased employee who are respondents in the present proceeding have obtained succession certificate in Succession Case No. 50 of 2000 in 2 their favour. The succession certificate has been issued in favour of the respondents under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 in respect of the compensation amount of Rs. 1,37,000/-. Whether the respondents are dependants of the deceased employee as defined under Section 2(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was not an issue before the trial Court. The respondents are own brothers of the deceased employee and they are thus legal heirs and successors of the deceased employee cannot be denied; whether they are entitled for compensation or not is a different issue. In its order dated 03.03.2001, the trial Judge has recorded that the witness-A.W.2 produced by the applicants has admitted that the employee-Christopher was unmarried and his father namely, Benedik Beck had pre- deceased him.
4. Accordingly, the petitioner's challenge to the succession certificate issued in favour of the respondents must fail.
5. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Amit/