V. Jagannathan, J.@mdashThis appeal is by one Rudramma, claiming to be a dependent of deceased Anil Kumar, and the grievance of the appellant is that the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, while allowing the claim application filed by the appellant''s husband Marijogaiah and son Ravi Kumar, also took note of the fact that the appellant, though not entitled to compensation as a dependent of deceased Anil Kumar, yet, as she happened to be the mother of deceased Anil Kumar, on humanitarian grounds, awarded compensation to the appellant also to an extent of 20% out of the total amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- and the remaining 80% was ordered to be paid to the husband of the appellant i.e., Marijogaiah, it is this order of the apportionment that is called in question in this appeal.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner was in error in giving major portion of the compensation to the appellant''s husband and the appellant, being the mother of deceased Anil Kumar, also ought to have been given adequate compensation, at least in the ratio of 60:40 instead of 80:20 and, therefore, the apportionment portion of the order be modified.
3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent 1-husband submitted that the Commissioner has apportioned the compensation amount of 80:20 between respondent 1 and the appellant even though the appellant is not a dependent because, the appellant married one Shivananda and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled for compensation as a dependent. Yet, taking into account that the appellant is the mother of the deceased, the Commissioner has apportioned the compensation in the ratio of 80:20.
4. To substantiate her submission that the appellant was married to one Shivananda, the learned Counsel referred to the evidence of Shivananda before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court in CC No. 187 of 2006 and also to the evidence of the very appellant herein, who was examined as P.W. 1 in the above CC. case at Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Malavalli. Referring to the contents of the two affidavits, the submission made is that the appellant has clearly admitted before the Criminal Court that she had married Shivananda and the said Shivananda also admits in his evidence that P.W. 1-Rudramma is his wife. In the face of the said material placed before the Commissioner, the Commissioner, therefore thought it fit to give some compensation to the appellant, though not strictly coming within the purview of the provisions of law. While awarding the compensation, the Commissioner also took note of Section 8 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923. As such, the impugned order calls for no interference as regards the apportionment is concerned.
5. In the light of the submissions made as aforesaid and the Commissioner also referring to the issue relating to the appellant having married one Shivananda while dealing with issue No. 4 in the impugned order and the two affidavits filed by them and the evidence of the appellant as P.W. 1 and Shivananda as P.W. 2 in the above mentioned CC. No. 187 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court also being taken into account, I am of the view that the apportionment made by the Commissioner does not require any interference. However, as far as the rate of interest is concerned, the same is payable at 7�% from the date of petition till the order of the Commissioner and thereafter in 12% till payment is made.
The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms and the only modification is as far as the grant of the interest is concerned.
