- (1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kota, dated October 12,
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has raised four main points against the award. The first point raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that Ram Karan, major brother of the deceased, is not a dependant in accordance With the definition given under section 2 (1) (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' ). The said section 2 (1) (d) reads as under : "2 (1) (d) 'dependant' means any of the following relatives of a deceased workman, namely- (i) a widow, a minor legitimate son, an unmarried legitimate daughter, or a widowed mother; and (ii) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm; (iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death- (a) a widower, (b) a parent other than a widowed mother, (c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter legitimate or illegitimate if married and a minor or if widowed and a minor, (d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor, (e) a widowed daughter-in-law, (f) a minor child of a predeceased son, (g) a minor child of a predeceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or (h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the workman is alive. "
(3.) I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. So far as the award to this extent is concerned, Ram Karan does not fall in any of the categories of the persons defined and as such he is not entitled for apportionment of the amount of compensation. The award is modified to this extent.;