1976 PLP 650 (PLC)

(1) Mst. Bilqis Begum, widow of the deceased. (3) Mst. Karamun Nisa, mother of the deceased. (3) Mst. Shahzadi Begum, unmarried sister of the deceased. The learned Commissioner vide order dated 14-5-1965 distributed the aforementioned amount as under:- (1) Mst. Bilqis Begum widow of the deceased-Rs. 3,000 to be paid at the rate of Rs. 100 p.m. (2) Mst. Karamunisa, mother of the deceased-Rs. 2,000 to be paid at the rate ofis. 75 p.m. (3) Mst. Shahzadi Begum, unmarried sister of the deceased-Rs. 1,000 to be paid in lump sum by a crossed cheque.

3. Against the above order Mst. Bilqis Begum widow of the deceased filed F.A.O. No. 80 of 1965 in the High Court. During the pendency of the above appeal Mst. Bilqis Begum died. Her Legal Representatives namely, Muhammad Yusaf, father and Mst. Wilayat Begum, mother were brought on the record on 16-1-67. The Legal Representatives submitted an application in the High Court, seeking permission to withdraw the F.A.O. Their application was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 31-1-1967. After that they applied to the learned Commissioner for the payment of the sum of Rs. 3,000 which had been awarded to Mst. Bilqis Begum. The Commissioner sent notices to Mst. Karamun Nisa and Mst. Shahzadi Begum to contest the application. They thereupon contested the application, and the learned Commissioner vide order under appeal directed that the sum of Rs. 3,000 lying in the Court be paid to the mother of the deceased, Mst. Karamun Nisa in lump sum by a crossed cheque. Aggrieved by the above order Mohammad Yousaf and Wilayat Begum had preferred this appeal. On 13-4-1976 when the appeal came up for hearing before the Tribunal, the respondents namely Mst. Karamun Nisa and Mst. Shahzadi Begum did not put in appearance. In fact they refused to accept service of the registered notices sent to them. Ex parte proceedings were thereupon ordered against them.

5. The learned Commissioner in my view had no power to review or alter the decision of the Commissioner dated 14-5-1965. In the case, A Pasupati Dutt v. Kelvin Jute Mills (A I R 1937 Cal. 495) it was held:- "On the death of a workman through some accident arising in the course of his employment, a right to the compensation, payable by the employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act vests in his dependant or dependants actually existing at the time of his death: and if such dependant dies before any claim to such compensation is made or investigated, the right passes on to his heirs or legal representatives as they are included in the word "dependants" in section 8." In the case, Ikkassintakath Abdurahiman and another v. Nadakkavau Malikkal Beeran Koya (A I R 1938 Mad. 402) it was held:- "Once an allotment of compensation to a dependant or a distribution of compensation money among several dependants is made, the com pensation so allotted or distributed becomes the property of the dependant and if the dependant and if the dependent dies, the said sum being his property will devolve on his or her heirs and will not revert back to the employer." '

6. These authorities were cited before the learned Commissioner but I am surprised that he brushed them aside as irrelevant to the point in issue. In fact they are most relevant In the result I accept the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Commissioner and direct that the sum of Rs. 3,000 be paid to the appellants who are the legal heirs of Mst. Bilqis Begum deceased. This case being very old, I direct that this order be complied with without undue delay. No order as to costs.