1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.672 OF 2010. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12979 OF 2009. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Dhule Branch ,Dhule, through its authorised signatory, Mr.Vishwas S/o Bansi Gaikwad, Age 55 years, Occ.Service, Sr.Div.Manager,New India Assurance Co. Ltd., R/o Aurangabad. ... Appellant. Versus Tai Pandu Chandankar and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.Dhananjay P. Deshpande, advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.S.Patil, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 01.09.2010. 2 ORAL ORDER 1. The appellant assails the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge, Labour Court, Dhule dated 3l.8.2009, in Workmen's Compensation Application No.75/2008, thereby allowing the application to the extent of granting compensation to the applicant No.2 therein as a legal heir and dependant of deceased Sanjay Ratan Chandankar. 2. The deceased Sanjay was working as labour with the present Respondent No.3 during the course of course of employment with the present Respondent No.3 on 10.10.2003. He suffered an electric shock and died on the spot. The present Respondents Nos.1 and 2 being the aunt and the brother of deceased Sanjay filed Workmen's Compensation Application bearing No. 75/2008 for compensation. 3. The said application has been partly allowed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and Judge, Labour Court, Dhule, vide 3 its order dated 3l.8.2009. The appellant has assailed the said order. 4. Mr.Dhananjay Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that it was an error on the part of the Commissioner to hold that the applicant No.2/present Respondent No.2 was a legal heir/dependant of deceased Sanjay. He was not minor on the said date of accident. According to him, the Commissioner wrongly relied on the copy of the Ration card. On the contrary, there was clinching evidence in the form of a legal heir certificate obtained by the brother of the applicant No.2 from the Tahsildar, in which the age of the present Respondent No.2 was shown as 20 years. In such circumstances, the applicant No.2 can not come within the ambit and definition of dependant as laid down U/s 2(1)(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. According to him, there was no reason to disbelieve the legal heirship certificate which is obtained after the death of deceased Sanjay. He further submitted that the Commissioner has misread the evidence on record. 4 There is no evidence worth the name to show or prove that applicant No.2 was minor on the date of the death of Sanjay. According to him, even if the copy of the ration card is appreciated carefully the only inference that can be drawn is that the claimant No.2 on the date of accident was 19 years and thus would not be dependant within the meaning of the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. 5. Per contra, Mr.S.S.Patil, learned counsel for the original claimants/present Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the document of ration card is obtained prior to the death of deceased Sanjay in the normal course, as such the same will have greater evidentiary value. There is no reason to disbelieve the said ration card and as per the said document the age of the applicant No.2 is only 15 years on the date of death of Sanjay. According to him, the legal heirship certificate which is obtained behind the back of the applicant No.2. One brother of the applicant Raju had applied for the legal heirship certificate without the knowledge 5 of the present applicant No.2 and he had mentioned the dates casually and no importance can be attached to the said legal heirship certificate. According to him, the Commissioner has rightly appreciated the evidence and granted compensation amount. 6. I have heard learned counsel at length and also with their assistance has gone through the record. The applicant No.1 is the real aunt of the applicant No.2 and the deceased Sanjay, who has brought up the applicant No.2 and deceased Sanjay after the death of their parents. She has stepped in the witness box and led evidence. Copy of the ration card which is obtained prior to the death of deceased Sanjay clearly shows the age of applicant No.2 as 15 years. There is nothing to disbelieve the said card. The said card has been obtained in the natural course. At the time the said card was obtained, deceased was alive and was working. At the said time, there was no reason for the applicants to submit wrong dates. If the said ration card is perused, the applicant No.2 is the 6 youngest amongst four brothers and the deceased Sanjay was the second eldest. The same was obtained by the real paternal aunt of the applicant No.2 who could know better regarding the age of all the brothers as it was she who had brought them up. At the time when the said ration card was obtained, there was no motive to show less age. As such naturally, the said card has been relied upon, whereas the legal heirship certificate is obtained simply on the application and affidavit of Raju i.e. one of the brother of applicant No.2. The applicant No.2 is not party to the said proceedings. The same has been obtained behind his back. The Commissioner has scanned the evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the applicant No.2 was minor on the date of the death of deceased Sanjay and was dependant within the meaning of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The view taken by the Commissioner is a plausible view. The Commissioner has also discussed that the parents of the applicant No.2 died when he was of one year and it is the applicant No.1 who has brought up the applicant No.2 and his 7 brothers. The copy of the ration card is corroborated by the oral evidence of the applicant No.1. 7. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Commissioner. No substantial question of law arises. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. In view of dismissal of First Appeal, Civil Application does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/fa672.10 8