T A HSGH COURT OF CHHARTT3SGARH AT BILASPUR Corarrs:- Hon'ble IVIr. T.P. ShBrma & Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Chandrakar. J^ Misc. Appeal (C) No. 959 of 2009 AppeJiant CSaimant No.3 Respondents Defendant No.1 ResDondent Defendant No,2 Respondent No.3/Claimant Na1 Respondent/ Claimant No.2 Kumari Kari Kashyap, D/o Late Ramchandra, aged about 35 years, R/o Viliage Gadlya, Thana Lohandiguda, District Bastar (CG) Versus 1. Pukhraj Jain, S/o Shri Hukmichand Jain, aged about 32years, R/oViliage Main Road Tongpal, Tehsif Konta, District Dantewada (CG) 2. The Oriental Insurance Company, through the Branch Manager, The ; Orientai Insurance Company, .¥Main Road, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar 3. Karnai Kashyap, S/o Late Ramchandra, aged about 33 years, R/o Viilage Gadiya, Thana Lohandiguda, Distt. Bastar(CG) 4. Moshu Kashyap, S/o Late Ramchandra, aged about 37 years, R/o ViJlage Gadiya, Thana Lohandiguda, Distt. Bastar (CG) (Appea! u/830 oftheWorkmen's Compensation Act, 1923) Present: Shri AIok Dewangan, counsel for the appellant. Shri P. Dutta, counsel forthe respondent No.2. Oral Order (Passed on 10thof February, 2010) Per T.P. Sharma. J By this appeal under Section 30 of the Workrnen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth the 'Act'), the appellant has challenged the lliegality and propriety of th-e judgment dated 24.02.2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Cornpensatlon (Labour Court), Jagdaipur (henceforth the 'Commissioner') in case No/B/38/W.C.AcVFatal/C/1/2007, whereby the Commissioner has dismissed the ciaim petition for compensation on account of death of Narendra Kashyap, on the ground that the appellant has not proved the dependency and entitlement of compensation. (2) Judgment and decree Is impugned on the ground that the Commissioner has not considered the evidence of the appeilant sufficient for proving the fact that the appeilant was dependent on her deceased brother Narendra Kashyapalong with other members of the famlly. (3) Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the deceased brother of the appeiiant was aged 30 years and was working as driver under the respondent No.1. On 12.12.2006, he met with an accident whlle he was driving truck bearing No.CG.17- H-3411, which was owned by respondent No.1, insured by respondent No.2 and received injuries. He was admitted in the hospital and died on 13.12.2006. He died during the course of the employment. The appellant was dependent on her deceased/brother. The appellant has filed a petition for compensation under Section 10 of the Act. The allegation made in the petition has been denied by the respondents No.1 & 2. Issues were framed. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Commissioner has dismissed the daim petition on the ground that appellant was not dependent on her deceased/brother-Narendra Kashyap. (4) Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned \ judgment and the records of the Court below. (5) Learned counsel for the appeilant vehemently argued that the appellant has proved the issue relating to dependency by adducjng evidence and piaced reliance on Damu & Another vs. Sayyad Yousaf Sayyad Jaialuddin and another reported in 2001 (1) T.A.C. 67 (Bom.), wherein it has been held that jn joint fami!y, there is totai interdependence of each other and the whole income is pooled together on which a!t depend. He further placed reliance on Manjuri Bera (Smt) vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 643 in which the apex Court has held that in the case of compensation on account of motor accident, the legal representative who is not dependent is entitied for compensatiort upto the extent of liabiiityof Section 140 of the Motor Vehicie Act. (6) On the other hand, iearned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the appeal and submitted that since the factum of dependency was not proved, therefore, she is not entitied for compensation. 7) We have examined the eyidence adduced on behaif of the parties. In the present case, the appeliant has fifed claim petition on the ground that she was dependent on her deceased brother. She hasexamined herself, but she has not stated anything in her examination-in-chief to prove the factum of dependency, but in her cross examination she has deposed that her brother was maintaining her, but immediateiy she has corrected herself and voiuntariiy deposed that during lifetime of her father, her father was maintaining her. It cleariy shows that father of the appeliant was maintaining her til! his life time who died after the death of the deceased. in the present case, the appeiiant was under obiigatlon to discharge the burden that she was dependent upon her brother, but she has faiied to adduce any evidence. The case of Manjuri Priya/raju Bera (Smt) (supra) is related to claim under Motor Vehicies Act in which it has been held that the legal representatives although not dependents are entitled for compensation awardable to the extent which they are otherwise entitled under Section 140 of the Act, in terms of "No Fault Liability". (8) This is not a case in which al! the members were earning members and the income ofthe members was pooied together. The facts of the case in Damu & another (supra) are distinguished to the facts of the present case. After appreciating the evidence, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the appellant was not dependent and dismissed the claim petition. (9) On close scrutinyof the evidence, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner has not committed any illegality in arriving at the above finding. We find no substance in this appeal, which is Siable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T-P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge