Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This is an appeal by claimant No. 1 Smt. Krishna Vishwakarma, widow of deceased Rajkumar Vishwakarma, under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act, 1923') challenging the order dated 13-07-2012 passed by the Commissioner under the Act, 1923, Labour Court, Korba (henceforth 'the Commissioner') in Case No. 27/E.C. Act/2012/Fatal/Deposit apportioning compensation among the dependants of the deceased under Section 8 of the Act, 1923. The facts, as projected and necessary for adjudication of the appeal, are thus:

(1.1) Rajkumar Vishwakarma, who was employed under respondent No. 1/Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) as a Line Attendant Grade-III, died in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment on 05-03-2011. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years and was earning Rs. 14,963/- per month. The deceased died leaving behind him his widow Krishna Vishwakarma (claimant No. 1), mother Prasunkali (claimant No. 2) and sister Pushpa Vishwakarma (claimant No. 3). Under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, 1923, respondent No. 1/CSPDCL deposited a sum of Rs.8,31,920/- before the Commissioner for apportionment among the dependants of the deceased.

(1.2) The Commissioner, after hearing the parties and going through the evidence on record, by order under paragraph 9 of the impugned order dated 13-07-2012, deducted a sum of Rs.1,000/- out of the deposited sum of Rs.8,31,920/- towards expenditure incurred in publication of notice in newspaper and apportioned the remaining sum of Rs.8,30,920/- under the provisions of Section 8(5) of the Act, 1923, as under:

^^vkfNr dk uke e`r deZpkjh ls fj’rk forfjr dh xbZ izfrdj jkf’k

1. Jherh d`”.kk fo’odekZ] mez yxHkx&29 o”kZ ifr Lo- jktdqekj fo’odekZ is’kk&ukSdjh] fuoklh&lh-,l-bZ-ch- dkWykSuh ,pVhihih] dSyk’k fogkj] edku ua- bZ@452] fo|qr uxj] dksjck] NRrhlx<+ fo/kok 2]00]000@& :I;s nl o”kZ ds fy;s ,Q-Mh- fd;k tk;s ,oa nl o”kZ ds i’pkr~ ewy/ku ,oa C;kt dh jkf’k lfgr iqu% nl o”kZ ds fy;s ,Q-Mh- fd;k tk;sA

2- izlqudyh] mez yxHkx&49 o”kZ] ifr Lo] v;ks/;k izlkn fo’odekZ Ekk=k ¼1½ 1]39]920@& :I;s cpr [kkrk esa tek fd;k tk,A

¼2½ 1]00]000@& :i;s ikap o”kZ ds fy;s ,Q-Mh- fd;k tk,A

¼3½ 1]00]000@& :I;s lkr o”kZ ds fy;s ,Q-Mh- fd;k tk,A

¼4½ 1]00]000@& :i;s nl o”kZ ds fy;s ,Q-Mh- fd;k tk,A

3- dq- iq”ik fo’odekZ mez yxHkx&19 o”kZ] firk Lo- v;ks/;k izlkn fo’odekZ] vkosfndk dz-2 ,oa 3] fuoklh&bafnjk uxj] teuhikyh] ,u-Vh-ih-lh- rglhy&dV?kksjk] ftyk & dksjck] NRrhlx<+ cgu 2]00]000@& :i;s nks o”kz ds fy;s ,Q-Mh- fd;k tk,A

;ksx % 8]30]920@& :i;s ek=

IN WORDS : - Eight Lac, Thirty Thousand, Nine Hundred Twenty Only”

2. Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel appearing for appellant/widow of the deceased would submit that the dispute of compensation between the appellant/widow of the deceased and the mother of the deceased is inequitable and that too without giving sufficient importance to the provisions as contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1923 defining the phrase "dependant". He would also submit that the appellant/widow of the deceased is also Class-1 heir as provided in the Schedule enacted under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Thus, the order of the learned Commissioner deserves to Shri Vikas Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3/claimants No. 2 and 3 supported the impugned order and opposed the appeal.

4. I have heard and considered the rival submissions and have perused the record of Case No. 27/E.C. Act/2012/Fatal/Deposit.

5. The appeal has been admitted be modified.

3. Per contra, Shri Manish Nigam, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/employer and on the following substantial question of law:

Whether the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation was justified under Section 8(5) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 in allotting only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant/widow of the deceased?

6. Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1923 defines the "dependan