JUDGMENT B.V. Nagarathna, J : Though this appeal is posted for considering the application for delay in filing the appeal, with the consent of the learned Counsel on both sides, it is heard finally. 2. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order dated 8.5.2007 in WCA No.28/2006 passed by the W.C. Commissioner, Gulbarga. 3. The relevant facts of the case are that one Hussain was sleeping at 1.30 p.m., at that time when the driver of lorry bearing Regn. No.AP22:D-6768 while reversing, on account of rash and negligent driving, dashed against him, as a result he succumbed to the injuries. Contending that she is the dependent on the deceased, respondent No.1 filed a claim petition before the W.C. Commissioner under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The W.C. Commissioner after recording the evidence awarded compensation of Rs. 2,95,590/- with interest, at the rate of 12% p.a. Being aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard, Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned Counsel for appellant, who submits that the claimant cannot be considered to be a 'dependant' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the W.C. Act and hence the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that the deceased was• sleeping at the time when the accident occurred and therefore it was not the case where the death occurred on account of and during the course of employment as envisaged under Section 3 of the Act and therefore the claim petition filed before the W.C. Commissioner was not maintainable. Under the circumstances, he submits that the appeal be allowed and the claim petition be dismissed. 5. Pet contra, learned Counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 is the unmarried sister of the deceased and therefore she was entitled to receive the 'Compensation as dependent under the provisions of the W.C. Act and hence, the appeal be dismissed. 6. Taking note of the above submissions, the only point that arises for• consideration is as to whether the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent herein under the provision of the W.C. Act, 1923 was maintainable. 7. 6. Taking note of the above submissions, the only point that arises for• consideration is as to whether the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent herein under the provision of the W.C. Act, 1923 was maintainable. 7. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent is the sister of the deceased, Hussain: However, accordingly the definition of dependant has given in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the W.C. Act. The dependant is defined in the following manner: "dependant" means any of the following relatives of deceased workman, namely.- (i) a widow, a minor (legitimate or adopted) son, an unmarried (legitimate or adopted)daughter or a widowed mother; and (ii) if wholly dependant 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 dependant on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death. - (a) a widower, M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chinnu Venkatamma 329 (b) a parent other than a widowed mother, (c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter (legimate or illegitimate or adopted) 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, CD a minor child of a pre-deceased son, (g) a minor child or a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or (h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of workman is alive;] [Explanation.-For the purposes of sub-clause(ii) and items (1) and (g) of sub-clause (iii) references to a son, daughter or child include an adopted son, daughter or child respectively.]" 8. The said definition is exhaustive and not an inclusive one and it states that only the relatives mentioned in the said sub-section are entitled to receive compensation under the W.C. Act. The definition of the term "dependent" has three categories. In sub-clause (i), there is statutory presumption of dependency. In sub-clause (ii), a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm, if wholly dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death are entitled to seek compensation under the Act. In sub-clause (i), there is statutory presumption of dependency. In sub-clause (ii), a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm, if wholly dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death are entitled to seek compensation under the Act. Therefore, in respect of a major son or a daughter, if he or she infirm as well as wholly dependent on the deceased workman at the time of his death is entitled. In sub-clause (iii), the relatives mentioned have to be wholly or in part dependent on the earning of the workman. 8(a). The definition of the term "dependent" would show that it is not intended to benefit all the heirs of a deceased workman, but to embrace only those relations who, to some extent, depend upon the deceased for their daily necessities. Kinship coupled with dependency for the criteria for a person to fall within the ambit of the definition. To hold otherwise and to extend the benefit of the Act to persons who are not covered within the scope of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act would be adding to the Act, which is impermissible. In other words, the purpose of the statute is not to give solatium to a relative of any person who has been fatally injured, but only to those relatives in order to replace the actual loss which he or she has suffered. 8(b). Under sub-clause (iii) to clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, certain categories of relatives, who are relatives to the deceased, who come within the meaning of 'dependant' are enumerated and under category (d) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (d) of sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, "a minor brother" or an "unmarried sister" or a "widowed sister", if a minor, can be considered to be a dependant. Therefore, as far as the brother or sister of the deceased is concerned, only if they are minors and in the case of sister if only unmarried or widowed can be entitled to claim compensation under the Act. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the claimant though may be a sister of the deceased is a major and not a minor. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the claimant though may be a sister of the deceased is a major and not a minor. The fact that she is married or not is not borne out on record, even assuming that she is an unmarried sister, considering the fact that she was a major at the time of accident and she is not entitled to maintain the claim petition under the W.C. Act. Hence, the Act is not applicable to the 1st respondent-claimant. 9. The other aspect of the case is as to whether the death occurred on account of or during the course of employment and as to whether the deceased was an employee of the owner of vehicle. These aspects need not be gone into in the instant case, as the Act is not applicable to the 1st respondent. Hence, the claim petition under the W.C Act filed by the 1st respondent is dismissed, reserving liberty to the 1st respondent to pursue her remedy in accordance with law. 10. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 11. Since the appeal has been disposed off, I.A. II/2007 does not survive for consideration. 12. The amount in deposit made before this Court is ordered to be refunded to the appellant.