V. JAGANNATHAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Bijapur, ordering the appellant herein to pay compensation of Rs. 86,112/- to respondent -1 claimant. The main contention urged in the appeal as well as in the course of the argument by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the claimant was not 'dependent' within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 )'the act' for short) and, as such, the Commissioner was in error in putting the liability on the appellant to pay compensation to respondent-1 claimant.

( 2 ) ELABORATING the contentions urged as above, it was submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the date of accident or with regard to the fact of the younger brother of the claimant succumbing to the injuries caused in the accident, but the only question is whether the claimant can be said to be the dependent of the deceased so as to be eligible for compensation under the Act. Referring to Section 2 (d) of the Act, it was submitted that the claimant, being the elder brother of the deceased driver, does not come within any of the categorie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document