- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Hariram And Others v. Commissioner For Workmen'S Compensation .
Summary of Judicial Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated 13.7.1982 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ratlam, in Case No. 28 of 1991. The deceased, Karu, was a worker with respondent No.1 (M.P.E.B.) and died during the course of employment. Respondent No.1 deposited Rs. 16,800/- to be paid to the heirs of the deceased. After inquiry the learned Commissioner directed payment of Rs. 10,030/- to Ramkanya (wife of Karu) and Rs. 6,770/- to Hariram (the appellant, father of Karu). The appellant challenged that distribution by way of this appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the widow's remarriage deprives her of the right to receive the compensation awarded to heirs of the deceased.
- Whether the learned Commissioner erred in awarding a portion of the compensation to the deceased's father despite the existence of a class I heir (the widow).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The memo of appeal contended that since Ramkanya (the widow) had remarried, the entire amount of compensation ought to have been awarded to the appellant (the father).
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of other parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted the statutory heirship positions: Ramkanya was a legally wedded wife and therefore a class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, while the father (appellant) was a class II heir. The court reiterated the established principle that class I heirs inherit in preference to class II heirs. It observed that the learned Commissioner appears to have awarded the father a share out of clemency and possibly due to the father's dependency on the deceased, and found no reason to interfere with that discretionary allocation. Regarding the appellant's contention about the widow's remarriage, the court reasoned that inheritance occurs immediately on the death of the deceased; at the time of death Ramkanya was residing as the wife and thus was deemed to be a widow entitled to inherit absolutely. The court held that remarriage does not deprive her of the right to receive the compensation.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Direct effect: The Commissioner’s distribution stands — Rs. 10,030/- to Ramkanya (wife) and Rs. 6,770/- to Hariram (father). The appeal was dismissed and, in the facts and circumstances, parties were ordered to bear their own costs. The opinion does not announce or rely upon any new precedent beyond applying established principles of heirship under the Hindu Succession Act.
R.D Shukla, J.:— The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.7.1982 of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ratlam, passed in Case No. 28 of 1991, whereby the appellant-father of the deceased Karu has been awarded Rs. 6,770/- and the rest of the amount, i.e, Rs. 10,030/- has been directed to be paid to respondent No. 2, the wife of deceased.
2. The brief history of the case is that the deceased Karu was a worker with respondent No. 1, i.e, M.P.E.B He died during the course of employment and as such Rs. 16,800/- were deposited by the respondent No. 1 for being paid to heirs of the deceased.
3. After enquiry the learned Commissioner directed payment as follows:
Ramkanya w/o Karu Rs. 10,030/- Hariram, appellant, father of Karu Rs. 6,770/-
4. There is no dispute that Ramkanya is legally wedded wife of deceased, as such she would be a class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act. The father, appellant (here), would be a class II heir.
5. It is also an established principle of law that class I heir inherits in preference to class II heir. It appears that learned Commissioner has awarded the amount to the appellant by showing the clemency and further as the father may have been dependent on the deceased. Thus, in the opinion of this court there does not appear to be any reason for interference.
6. It has been contended in the memo of appeal that since Ramkanya has remarried and, therefore, the whole amount ought to have been awarded to the father (appellant here). This contention cannot be accepted as that would be against the provisions of law. The inheritance is not kept in abeyance. It took place immediately after the death and since at the time of death Ramkanya was residing as wife of the deceased and, therefore, she would be deemed to be a widow. Now there is no principle of limited heir. She will inherit absolutely with full rights and, therefore, even after remarriage she cannot be deprived of her right of getting compensation.
7. The appeal has no force and is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs.
8. Appeal dismissed.
Alert