Smt. Girdamma and Kum Shruthi, Since Minor, Rep, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian Smt Girjamma Appellant No. 1 vs Smt. Shankaramma, Mubarak Pasha R. and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Hon''ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna

This appeal is directed against the order dated 17/6/2011, passed in W.C. No. 189/2007 by the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner at Tumkur.

The appeal is filed by the wife and daughter of deceased Basavaraj, on account of whose death a claim for compensation was made. The Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner Tumkur, by his order dated 17/6/2011 has awarded Rs. 3,44,855/- with interest, as compensation. The apportionment of compensation has been assailed by the wife and daughter of the deceased by contending that the amount awarded to Respondent No. 1 is excessive.

By order dated 25/11/2011 the appellants and respondent No. 1 were directed to be present before this Court today. Appellant No. 1 is not present but respondent No. 1 along with appellant No. 2 are present. Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the deceased''s daughter resides with respondent No. 1 - grand mother and not with appellant No. 1 who is her Mother; that the amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- which has been apportioned in the name of appellant No. 2 shall be put in a Fixed Deposit along with interest in any Nationalised Bank till the appellant No. 2 attains majority. Submission of Counsel for Respondent No. 1 is placed on record.

Counsel for appellant No. 1 has no objection for the same. Therefore, it is directed that a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- with proportionate interest is to be deposited in any Nationalised Bank till appellant No. 2 attains the age of majority. As far as the apportionment of the balance amount is concerned, counsel for respondent No. 1 also submits that appellant No. 2 shall be looked after by respondent No. 1, by utilising the compensation that has been apportioned in the name of respondent No. 1.

In view of the fact that respondent No. 1 has undertaken to take care of the appellant No. 2, who has been residing with respondent No. 1 out of the compensation amount that has been apportioned to respondent No. 1 with proportionate interest and considering the fact that appellant No. 2 is being looked after and is residing with respondent No. 1, the appellants can have no grievance with regard to the apportionment of compensation to respondent No. 1. The contention of Appellant No. 1 is wholly frivolous.

It is to be noted that the appellants herein as well as respondent No. 1 are Class-I heirs and each of them are entitled to equal share in the compensation amount determined by the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner. Thus the compensation amount determined by the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner does not call for any interference in this appeal.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.