JUDGMENT
A.S. Tripathi, J.
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated January 19, 1993 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Gwalior awarding compensation of Rs. 88,548/-to respondent No. 1 Laxmi Devi, the widow of deceased workman Suresh.
2. The facts are that one Suresh (since dead) was working as a workman in the factory of Respondent No. 2. On December 4, 1991, an accident took place in the factory and Suresh had died in that accident. The insurance company in view of the claim put by the widow of deceased and others had deposited Rs 4 lacs on March 24, 1992. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation called upon the parties to put their claim. The claim was put by Respondent No. 1 as widow of the deceased. Another claim was put by the parents, the present appellants. The Commissioner in view of the nomination form in the provident fund found that the widow of the deceased was the sole dependant of deceased and granted compensation to her. The claim of the present appellants was rejected on the ground that the father of the deceased was already an earning member and was working in another factory in the same town. The mother of the deceased was also living with the father of the deceased and they were not found to be in any way dependent upon the workman.
3. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that under the provisions of Section 2 Sub-section (1) Clause (d), the dependant has been defined in a first category of Clause (i). The dependants specified are a widow, a minor legitimate son, and unmarried legitimate daughter, or a widowed mother.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that under the provisions of Clause (iii) Sub-section (b) of the same Section, the parents other than a widowed mother are also included in the definition of dependant. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that since the appellants are also dependants along with the widow of the deceased, their claim could not be rejected by the Compensation Commissioner and they should also be allowed to share the claim along with the widow.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Indore v. Nansingh, (1984-I-LLJ-186) (MP). It has been held thus :
“The definition of ‘dependent’ in Section 2(d) of Workmen’s Compensation Act is an inclusive definition which uses the word ‘any’. The dependants in the said definition are not classified in different categories like 1, 2 and 3 nor the said definition anywhere provides that the dependant mentioned in category No. 1 alone will have the right to claim the compensation. It cannot be said that widow alone in preference to other dependants is entitled to file petition for compensation. The parents of the deceased are also entitled to file petition for compensation.”
6. It is true that the dependants mentioned in the first category have a right to file a claim for compensation but this first category does not exclude the other category as mentioned in Clauses (ii) and (iii) of Sub-section (2), Clause (d) but the claim of each of the dependants have to be substantiated by evidence along with claim of other categories.
7. Reference was further made to the case of Mst. Intiyajbi v. N.C. Colliery, AIR 1959 MP 329. In that case, it was held that a widowed mother falls in the first category for claim of compensation.
8. In the present case, the claim of the appellant No. 1 falls in the category (iii) Clause (b). The claim of Respondent No. 1 was in category No. (i).
9. It was to be decided on evidence as to whether the appellants were really dependants upon the deceased. The evidence has come before the Compensation Commissioner that only widow/ Respondent No. 1 was living with her husband/ deceased. In the evidence it has also come that the appellant No. 2, the father of the deceased, was also serving at that time in another factory and was earning member. It has also come in the statement of Laxmi Devi that her mother-in-law was living with her husband and was not dependant with the deceased. The Compensation Commissioner came to the conclusion after appreciating the evidence that only the widow of the deceased was dependant upon the deceased and was living with him.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the appellants were living jointly with the son (deceased) and Laxmi Devi. That point has been considered by the Commissioner and even if they were living with the deceased they could not be said to be the dependants in view of the fact that Shyamlal himself was an earning member and his wife was living with him. In that view of the matter, so far as the claim of compensation is concerned, it can be only awarded to the dependant of the workman. From the evidence, it is clear that the only dependant of the deceased is Laxmi Devi and therefore her claim was rightly allowed. The claim of the appellants was not substantiated and was rightly rejected.
11. No interference is called for in the impugned award. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.