Court rules on compensation claims after a work-related death, affirming dependants’ rights.

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name:

National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs LR's Dhapu Kanwar (High Court of Rajasthan)

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 974/2015

Date: 28th August 2024

Key Takeaways

• The court clarified the definition of “dependant” under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
• It established that the right to compensation accrues at the time of the worker’s death, not when the claim is filed.
• The ruling emphasized that legal representatives of a deceased dependant can claim compensation even if the dependant dies before filing the claim.

Issue

Did the major brothers of the deceased worker qualify as dependants under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, and can they claim compensation after the death of their mother, who was the original dependant?

Facts

• Lehar Singh, employed as a cleaner, died in an accident while working on a tanker.
• His mother was initially considered the dependant but passed away shortly after the accident.
• The claim for compensation was filed by his brothers, Himmat Singh and Pratap Singh, after their mother’s death.
• The National Insurance Company argued that the brothers were not dependants and thus not entitled to compensation.

Arguments

• Appellant (National Insurance Company):
• Claimed that the brothers did not fall under the definition of “dependant” as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
• Argued that the claim should have abated with the mother’s death, as she was the sole dependant.
• Respondents (Himmat Singh and Pratap Singh):
• Contended that the right to compensation accrued at the time of Lehar Singh’s death, and thus they were entitled to claim as legal heirs of their mother.
• Cited that the mother was alive at the time of the accident, establishing their right to compensation.

Key Legal Precedents

• Employees Compensation Act, 1923:
• Section 2(1)(d) defines “dependant” and specifies who qualifies for compensation.
• Section 4A(1) states that compensation is due immediately upon the worker’s death.
• The court referenced previous judgments, including B.M. Habeebullah Maricar vs. Periaswami and Ors., which discussed the rights of dependants and their legal representatives in claiming compensation.

Judgment

The court ruled in favor of the respondents, affirming that:

• The brothers were entitled to compensation as they were the legal heirs of their mother, who was a dependant at the time of the worker’s death.
• The right to compensation crystallized at the time of the worker’s death, and this right passed to the legal representatives after the mother’s death.
• The National Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation along with a penalty for the delay in payment.

FAQs

1. What does this ruling mean for dependants of deceased workers?

• It clarifies that dependants’ rights to compensation are preserved even if they pass away before filing a claim.

2. Can major siblings claim compensation?

• Generally, major siblings do not qualify as dependants under the Act, but they can claim as legal heirs if the original dependant passes away.

3. What happens if the dependant dies before the claim is filed?

• The right to compensation can still be claimed by the legal representatives of the deceased dependant.

4. What is the significance of this case?

• It reinforces the protective intent of the Employees Compensation Act, ensuring that dependants are not deprived of their rights due to procedural issues or the death of a dependant.