JUDGMENT
P.K. Misra, J.
1. The Insurer has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
2. The deceased was working as a driver in a Bus bearing registration No. OAU 2561 and died in an accident arising out of and in course of employment. Claim application was filed by respondentNo. 1 as daughter and respondent No. 2 as brother of the deceased. The owner did not file any written statement. The Insurer filed written statement challenging the averments made in the claim application and called upon the claimants to prove their entitlement by producing (he succession certificate.
3. During the enquiry before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimants to show that claimant No. 1 was the natural daughter of the claimant No. 2 and was adopted by the deceased.
4. The Commissioner found that the deceased was a workman and had died in an accident arising out of and in course of employment. It was further found that claimant No. 1 was the adopted daughter of the deceased. It was directed that a sum of Rs. 86,764/- shall be paid as compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that even assuming that claimant No. 1 was the adopted daughter, she was not entitled to claim any compensation as before the amendment of the Act in the year 1995 it was not contemplated that an adopted child would be entitled to receive any compensation. Before the Act was amended in the year 1995 by Act 30 of 1995 it was not specifically indicated that son or daughter includes an adopted son or daughter and such, explanation was added by way of amendment. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that an adopted child was not considered to be a dependent prior to the amendment of the Act by Act 30 of 1995.
6. The aforesaid submission of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. An adopted son or daughter is considered to be a son or daughter of the person adopting for all purposes. It is of course true that by Act 30 of 1995 provision has been amended to include adopted son and daughter. However, such amendment must be taken to be declaratory in nature. Even prior to the amendment it had been held in the decision reported in 1968 (2) LLH 790 Ganga Devi v. N.H. Ojha and Co. and AIR 1931 Lahore 661 In re Divi Ditta, that an adopted child would be entitled to get compensation under the Act as a dependent. It must be taken that the amendment has only classified the aforesaid position by incorporating a specific provision. The contention of the counsel for the appellant, therefore, fails.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the finding of the Commissioner that the claimant No. 1 was the adopted daughter cannot be accepted. He has relied upon the reported in Lakshman Singh Kothari v. Smt. RupKanwar, AIR 1961 SC 1378, L. Devi Prasad (dead) by L.Rs. v. Smt. Tribeni Devi and Ors., AIR 1970 SC 1286, Madhusudan Das v. Smt Narayani Baiand Ors. AIR 1983 SC 114 and submitted that in order to establish an adoption it must he proved that there was giving and taking of the adopted child. Though in examination-in-chief, P.W. 1 stated that claimant No. 1 was the adopted daughter of the deceased he had not stated any thing specifically about giving and taking. In cross-examination, however, he has stated that there was giving and taking. The Commissioner has accepted such evidence of P. W. 1 on the basis that the same has received corroboration from the certificate relating to the admission of the claimant in the school which indicates that she was the adopted daughter of the deceased. The Headmistress of the school had been examined as a witness and the Commissioner has accepted such evidence as corroborative of the assertion relating to adoption. The Commissioner has referred to the Legal Heir Certificate issued by the Tahsildar after making some enquiry. As against such evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant, the Insurance Company has sought to prove the report of the investigator. However, the report of the Investigator is admittedly based on the statement of some persons who have not been examined. The report of the Investigator was not accepted by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has come to the conclusion regarding the adoption of claimant No. 1 by the deceased after discussing the evidence adduced by both sides. It has been submitted that the conclusion of the Commissioner is erroneous and the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant should not have been accepted. An appeal under Section 30 of the Act is confined to substantial question of law. The finding of the Commissioner is a finding of fact based on discussion of relevant materials on record. It is not the case of the appellant that any relevant evidence adduced has been ignored nor there is any error on record. But the submission is to the effect that the view taken by the Commissioner is not acceptable. Merely because a different view could have been taken, it cannot be said that any substantial question of law is involved.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon an unreported decision of this Court dated July 17, 1995 in Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramjanam Singh and Ors. M.A.No. 438 of 1994. In the said case it was concluded that the plea of adoption taken by the claimant was an afterthought and had not been supported by evidence on record. The decision was rendered on the basis of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and it cannot be said that the aforesaid decision lays down any universal principle of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In fact, in that case it was found that on the basis of the admitted case of the parties, there was violation of the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Adoption and Maintenance Act, inasmuch as the difference of age between the adoptive father and the alleged adopted daughter was less than twenty one years. Such is not the case -in the present appeal.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly
dismissed.
10. It appears that the awarded amount has been deposited. Out of the said amount a sum of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of seven years in the name of claimant-respondent No. 1 with permission to withdraw the quarterly interest by the guardian The balance amount may be paid to the claimant-respondent No. 1 by way of an Account Payee Cheque. There will be no order as to cost.