IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 548 of 2003(A)
1. R.V.MOHAMMED, S/O.SEYDALI HAJI, RAYAM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOHN, S/O.MATHEW, ALAPPAT HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. M.J.TONY, THAMPULLY HOUSE, KACHERY,
For Petitioner :SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
For Respondent :SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :22/05/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
M.F.A.NO.548 OF 2003 (A)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008
J U D G M E N T
KOSHY,J.
The 1st respondent filed an application before the
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Thrissur,
contending that his son died during the course of employment
while constructing a building for the appellant. The
construction work of the building was entrusted with the
2nd respondent, a contractor. The factum of accident is not
disputed. Accident occurred on 3.4.1998, while doing the
construction work for the appellant. But, according to the
appellant, building construction work was entrusted to the
2nd respondent, a contractor and he had no connection with
the employment of the deceased workman. The
1st respondent is the father of the deceased workman and
according to him, deceased was getting Rs.3,000/- per month
and he was aged 23 at the time of accident. Commissioner
MFA.548/03 2
fixed Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income and after verifying
Ext.A5 S.S.L.C. Certificate, found that he was only 22 years as
his date of birth was 15.3.1976 and the accident occurred on
3.4.1998. Commissioner also found that appellant was the
principal employer and he is liable to pay compensation.
Right of recovery from the 2nd respondent under Section 12(2)
of the Workmen’s Compensation Act was also granted. The
2nd respondent was declared ex parte. The contention raised
by the appellant is that no evidence was adduced to show that
the 1st respondent was dependent. On going through the
written statement, contention was that the claimant was not
the father of the deceased workman but tribunal after
verifying Exts.A3 and A5 School certificates found that
claimant was the father of the deceased workman. If no
specific contentions were taken, that application is not
maintainable because claimant is not a dependent.
Thereafter, compensation was calculated strictly as per the
provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In the
absence of evidence, now it cannot be contended that
claimant was not the dependent of the employee. In any way,
it is proved that he was the father of the deceased. Under
MFA.548/03 3
Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, only if there
is a substantial question of law, appeal will lie. Here no
substantial question of law arises, and hence, this appeal is
dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
prp
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
——————————————————–
M.F.A.NO.548 OF 2003 (A)
———————————————————
J U D G M E N T
———————————————————
22nd May, 2008