CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30-7-1993 in case No. Wca. Sr. 132/92 passed by the labour officer and commissioner for workmen's compensation, bijapur. In passing the same, the said workmen's compensation commissioner had awarded a sum of Rs. 48,398/- together with interest at 6% p. a. to the respondent 2. ( 2 ) I heard the learned counsel Sri p. c. ajjappa appearing along with Sri kaleemullah shariff for the contesting respondent 2. The respondent 1 is represented by Sri b. s. patil. I have also perused the records of the case. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case are as hereunder: that one malakawwa, aged about 33 years, wife of the respondent 2-claimant died in a road accident caused by the tractor-trailor bearing registration No. Ka-28 1989-90 owned by the respondent 1 herein. The appellant-insurance company is the company which had insured the vehicle in question. Consequent on the death of the said malakawwa, the respondent 2-claimant, her husband filed a claim petition before the labour officer and commissioner for workmen's compensation, bijapur (henceforth in brief referred to as the commissioner), claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The respondent 2-claimant examined himself and examined yet another witness by name basawwa, wife of shivappa before the commissioner. Though the respondent 2-claimant had stated that the deceased was working on daily wages of Rs. 70/- per day in his evidence, the respondent 2 deposed that the deceased was earning at the rate of Rs. 20/- per day. The evidence of the respondent 2 was disbelieved by the commissioner and based on the evidence on record, the commissioner passed the impugned award, awarding a sum of Rs. 48,398/ -. Having been aggrieved by the same, the appellant-insurance company is before this court. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company Sri chinnappa kambeyanda argued that the respondent 2-claimant was not at all entitled to maintaining the claim petition before the commissioner for the simple reason that he was not at all a dependant as denned under Section 2 (lxd) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. While urging the said ground, Sri chinnappa kambeyanda also argued that neither in the claim petition nor in the evidence of the respondent 2-claimant, it had been claimed that he was either wholly or partly depending upon the deceased during her life time. While urging the said ground, Sri chinnappa kambeyanda also argued that neither in the claim petition nor in the evidence of the respondent 2-claimant, it had been claimed that he was either wholly or partly depending upon the deceased during her life time. Hence, according to him, the very claim petition filed by the respondent 2-claimant before the commissioner was misconceived one and therefore the same was liable to be dismissed by the commissioner. While summing up his argument, he also submitted that it is that aspect of the case the commissioner had missed and in the process he had passed the impugned award fastening the liability of a sum of Rs. 48,398/ -. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent 2-sri ajjappa on the other hand while supporting the impugned award submitted that the proceedings before the commissioner being summary in nature, the strict rules of pleadings and evidence do not apply. It is also his argument that the very fact that the deceased was working as a coolie was also for the benefit of the respondent 2-claimant, he has further added that while this court interprets the Provisions under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it should be liberal in its interpretation as the legislation in question is a labour oriented and beneficial piece of legislation. ( 6 ) AT the outset I have to point out here that in the instant appeal before this court there is no substantial question of law that has been raised by the appellant-insurance company. The only point that has been made out is that there was no jurisdiction for the commissioner to entertain the claim petition filed by the respondent 2-claimant for the reason that there was no assertion on the part of the respondent 2 that he was either wholly or partly depending upon the deceased. As it has been pointed out by the other side, it also appears to me that the strict rules of pleading and evidence are not applicable to the summary proceedings before the commissioner. To some extent, there is some force in the argument of Sri chinnappa to say that the deceased was not contributing to the respondent 2-claimant to bring his case within the ambit the Section 2 (l) (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. To some extent, there is some force in the argument of Sri chinnappa to say that the deceased was not contributing to the respondent 2-claimant to bring his case within the ambit the Section 2 (l) (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In the light of the submissions made by Sri kambeyanda, I have also carefully gone through the evidence on record. No doubt there is no specific assertion on the part of the respondent 2-claimant, but in the evidence he had stated that he was put to lot of difficulties. To quote the end part of the evidence of the respondent 2-claimant, the same reads as follows: ( 7 ) BY the above piece of evidence on record it appears to me that the respondent 2-claimant being an illiterate person and thus not being worldly-wise, did not say in so many words in what manner he had in fact been put to difficulties in life. All the more, that is not the case of the appellant-insurance company before the commissioner in filing its detailed objection statement; that apart, there was not even a suggestion by the appellant-insurance company to the respondent 2-claimant in his cross-examination to say that the respondent 2-claimant was neither totally nor partially depending upon his deceased-wife. We cannot forget for a moment here that the respondent 2-claimant is also a coolie by his avocation and therefore cannot be said that he was not at all depending upon his wife-coolie, work by him being not regular and at times seasonal. In the totality of circumstances, it cannot be therefore said that the respondent 2-claimant was not put into any hardships to dislodge himself beyond the pail of Section 2 (l) (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. ( 8 ) IN that view of the matter, i do not find any merit in the instant appeal before this court. The appeal therefore fails and accordingly dismissed, ( 9 ) THE appellant-insurance company is directed to deposit the balance of the sum together with interest after giving deduction for any sum deposited before this court or before the commissioner below sub sequent to the date of passing of the award now under challenge. --- *** --- .