( 1 ) THIS appeal by the insurance company is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th may, 2002 passed in W. C. Case no. 2 17/2001 by the learned Commissioner, workmen's Compensation, Kamrup at guwahati allowing a compensation of rs. 4,23,580/- to the respondents-claimants.

( 2 ) THE respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 filed the claim petition lor compensation on death of dara Singh Sutradhar who was working as a driver of a mini truck bearing registration no A. S.-01/c-3182 belonging to the respondent No. 4.

( 3 ) ON 29-7-2001, Dara Singh Sutradhar was driving the aforesaid vehicle with c. R. P. F. personnel on way to Ranguli. On the way at Bhalukjuli, while passing over a wooden bridge, the vehicle was blown oiy by a remote controlled explosive device by extremists. As a result, Dara Singh Sutradhar along with two other persons died. The vehicle was insured with the appellant-company. The death of the driver was in course of his employment and,, as such, an application for compensation was died under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It may be mentioned here that the claim petition has been filed by the brother of the deceased, sister (widowed) and her son.

( 4 ) THE appellant company entered appearance and contested the claim. They took the plea that the respondents were not dependent on the deceased and, therefore, the claim petition cannot be entertained.

( 5 ) THE learned Commissioner on appreciation ol the materials on record awarded the verdict granting compensation without any finding on the objection raised.

( 6 ) AT the time of admission of this appeal no substantial question of law was formulated as is required under the proviso to Section 30 of the Act. Considering the pleadings, it has been decided to hear this appeal on the following question of law:

"whether the respondents-claimants who arc the brother and widowed sister of the deceased workman could, be treated as dependents under the provisions of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923?"

( 7 ) THERE is no dispute that the father and mother of late Dara Singh Sutradhar predeceased him. They left the deceased, his brother Rana and their sister Malabali. Malabati was married and the claimant No. 3 parameswar is her son. Her husband died premature after birth of their first child, and since then she along with her minor son have been living with the deceased. T here is no evidence on record to show that there is any other male or female member in the family to earn the livelihood lor the claimants. They obviously, had to depend upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that they were dependants of deceased Dara Singh for their subsistence. This is the ground reality. But the Workmen's compensation Act defines "dependent" in section 2 (1) (d) which does not include the brother - major or minor, the married or widowed sister and their son. in the same section in Clause (iii) (d), it is provided "a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister of a minor" are dependents within the meaning of the Act. The learned commissioner noticed that the sister malabati is 29 years old and her son Parameswar is 6 years old. They, therefore, cannot be treated as dependents. The verification as well as the evidence of P. W. 1 (claimant No. 1) show that rana Dev (brother) was 21 years old at the time of tiling of the claim petition. Therefore, he not being a minor cannot be treated as dependent.

( 8 ) RELIANCE has been put on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Devi (Smt)anil others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , and another, wherein in para-15, the Hon'blc supreme Court made an observation that objects of the two enactments clearly establish that both the enactments are beneficial enactments operating in the same field, hence the judicially accepted interpretation of the word "death" in the Workmen's compensation Act is applicable to the interpretation of the word "death" in the motor Vehicles Act. By referr