Married Daughter Cannot Continue Pending Compensation Claim Filed By Mother Under Employees Compensation Act: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a married daughter, who is not a “dependant” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, cannot continue a pending compensation claim filed by her mother, who died before the award was passed. The Court observed that had the award been passed in favour of the mother during her lifetime, the daughter could have claimed it as part...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a married daughter, who is not a “dependant” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, cannot continue a pending compensation claim filed by her mother, who died before the award was passed. The Court observed that had the award been passed in favour of the mother during her lifetime, the daughter could have claimed it as part of her mother's estate, but the cause of action did not survive when the mother died during the pending proceedings.
Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi was hearing appeals arising from an award of ₹6,12,360 with 10% interest passed by the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, in favour of the Claimant. The original claim had been filed by her mother, who was the widow of the deceased employee, who had died due to a factory boundary wall collapsing upon him on April 26, 2015.
During the pendency of the claim, the widowed wife died, and her married daughter was substituted in her place by the Labour Court despite the Employer's objection that she could not be treated as a “dependant” under the Act.
The Court examined the definition of “dependant” under Section 2(1)(d), and noted that a married daughter is not included as a “dependant” relative, observing:
“… a married daughter is not included as a "dependent" relative under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act 1923, which explicitly includes only an 'unmarried daughter'.”
The Court held that if an award has been passed in favour of the deceased wife during her lifetime, the compensation amount would have formed part of her estate, and the Appellant could have claimed the same in the capacity of a legal representative. However, this was not the case here.
“… since the Original Claimant died during the pendency of the claim proceedings prior to the passing of any award, the cause of action did not survive to the Appellant, who is not a "dependant" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1923,” the Court remarked.
The Court accordingly held that the Labour Court committed a grave error in allowing the substitution and passing an award in favour of a person who was not a statutory dependant.
Consequently, the Employer's appeal was allowed, and the claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and interest was dismissed.
Case Title: Smt. Nanda Soni v. M/s Suraj Pulses Industries [MAC No. 1311 of 2022] & M/s Suraj Pulses Industries v. Smt. Nanda Soni [MAC No. 1494 of 2022]