M.T. Joshi, J.

1. Heard both sides. The only issue in this appeal is, whether the claimants can be termed as the dependents of the deceased under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

2. On the day of the accident, deceased-Nishikant was driving the jeep on the way from Dhule to Pimpelner. At that time, a goods truck bearing registration No. MWQ-2022 dashed the jeep of the deceased. In the said accident, the deceased died. The documentary evidence, which was not controverted, was that the deceased was 27 years old and was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month.

3. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the parents of the deceased i.e. present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not dependents of the deceased. Respondent No. 1-Rambhau is the father, who is pensioner and as such, said couple cannot be called as dependents of the deceased.

4. Provisions of section 2(1)(d)(iii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, runs as under:--

2((1)d) "Dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman, namely--

(i) a widow, a minor (legitimate or adopted) son, an unmarried (legitimate or adopted) daughter, or a widowed mother; and

(ii) if wholly depende