9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ields, Sasti, Tahsil Ballarpur, District Chandrapur. It so happened that when he was performing his duty on 04/6/2009, a heap of sand collapsed and he got buried thereunder. He remained buried for a considerable period of time and it was only on 12/6/2009, his body could be recovered. He was, of course, found dead at that time. Since the accidental death occurred during the course of employment, the employer deposited an amount of Rs. 3,51,080/with the Commissioner as compensation payable under the Act, 1923 by accepting the liability of the employer therefor. The appellants herein, while appellant No.1 is widow and appellants No. 2 to 4 are children, being legal heirs and dependents of deceased Kishore Tode, filed an application under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this order, they moved an application under Section 8(8) of the Act, 1923 for variation of distribution order passed on 08/11/2011 before learned Commissioner, Chandrapur. However, learned Commissioner did not find any substance therein and noting that there being no change of circumstance or any fraudulent circumstance being present on record, he could not modify the distribution order and accordingly rejected the application. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellants are before this Court in this appeal. 5. On 13/11/2013, this Court had passed an order to the effect that the appeal shall be heard finally at the admission stage itself on the next date. In pursuance of this order, this appeal has been heard. During the course of hearing, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chandrapur. During the course of her evidence, documents were produced by her and they were proved by her and accordingly exhibited by the Commissioner. One of the documents produced by her is an affidavit sworn by deceased Kishore at Exh.32 and this affidavit supports the contention of the appellants that respondent, though first wife of the deceased, had been divorced by the deceased and after the divorce, the deceased had performed marriage with appellant No.1. No contest to this evidence has been made by the respondent. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that in fact, respondent had declined to crossexamine appellant No.1. In such circumstances, it has to be accepted, at least for the purposes of the proceedings filed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wife are divorced a vinculo, the wife after the husband's death is not his 'widow' and entitled to dower.." 10. In view of the above, the argument of learned Counsel for the respondent that respondent is a widow and dependant of the deceased cannot be accepted and argument of learned Counsel for the appellants in this regard needs to be upheld. I, therefore, find that in the instant case, for the purpose of enquiry under the Act, 1923, the respondent cannot be said to be enjoying the status of widow of deceased Kishore. Once we find that so far as the enquiry under the Act, 1923 is concerned, the respondent was not the widow of deceased Kishore, she would be out of the scope and ambit of the definition of the term, 'depende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
