Judgment :- In the claim petition, following are stated – The applicants daughter Shyamala Devi was working as employee under the opposite party for the past five years. She was paid wages @ Rs.3, 000/- per month. On 24.05.2003 at about 11.30 a.m., Shyamala Devi was doing the work allotted to her and in the course of her employment, she tried to light the gas stove and when she was pumping the stove, fire accidentally spread and her clothes started burning and also her body. She was immediately rushed to National Hospital, Manali and later shifted to National Hospital near Chennai Beach Railway Station. A case in Crime No.100 of 2003 was filed under Section 337 of I.P.C. and afterwards it was altered to Section 304 A of I.P.C. She succumbed to the injuries on 29.05.2003 and a post mortem was also conducted. It is stated that the deceased worker Shyamala Devi was the only earning member of the family and there was no other source of income. She was not married at the time of accident. She was aged about 20 years at the time of accident. The applicant sent notice to the opposite party and a reply was also given with incorrect allegations and liability to pay compensation was also denied. There was no negligence on the part of Shyamala Devi and the opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.6, 00,000/-. 2. The following are the statements in brief as found in the counter filed by the opposite party. It is denied that Shyamala Devi was working as an employee under the opposite party for the past five years and was getting a sum of Rs.3, 000/-as monthly wages. She was a daily wage labourer and she used to get it at the end of the month after putting signature. She got only Rs.1, 200/-per month, which was the last drawn total wages also. It is denied that the injury sustained by her was in the course of employment. It is nothing but a suicide attempt by the deceased and it would be internal family quarrel or failure of love affair. Neither gas stove nor pump stove in the working place was available and the duty does not require either gas stove nor pump stove. There was only a Nada stove which was kept in almirah and was not used for months together. Neither gas stove nor pump stove in the working place was available and the duty does not require either gas stove nor pump stove. There was only a Nada stove which was kept in almirah and was not used for months together. She negligently used the said stove and voluntarily attempted to commit suicide. 2(a). It is an accident voluntarily and negligently caused by the deceased which was not in the course of employment. The deceased with full conscious tendered apology to the opposite party for her act and the opposite party without asking any body, spent Rs.75,000/- for medical expenses apart from paying money to the funeral expenses. The case records of the hospital would show that it is not negligent on the part of the hospital authorities which led to the death of the deceased. The opposite party is not at all liable to pay any compensation much less Rs.6, 00,000/-. Hence, the petition may be dismissed. 3. After analysing the evidence on record, the authority below decided that the accident took place during the course of and out of employment and directed the opposite party namely the respondent to pay compensation of Rs.1,33,626/-by adopting the following formula - .(1) Salary ... Rs.1,200/- .(2) Age ... 21 years .(3) Age factor ... 222.71 .(4) Compensation ... 50/100 x 1200 x 221.71 = Rs.1,33,626/- A sum of Rs.2, 500/- was also directed to be paid towards funeral expenses. Aggrieved against the above said compensation, the appellant is before this court. 4. At the time of admission of the appeal, this court formulated the following questions of law : "(1) Whether the respondent is entitled to claim as a Dependent under the Workmans Compensation Act especially when she is having a living husband and two working sons and deceased is the last daughter of the respondent? and (2) Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Workmans Compensation, Chennai, can award compensation in favour of the respondent when there is no evidence to show that the respondent is wholly or partially dependent on the earning of the deceased?" 5. It is admitted fact that the deceased was under employment with the appellant but it is denied that she worked for five years and that she was getting wages of Rs.3,000/-per month. It is admitted fact that the deceased was under employment with the appellant but it is denied that she worked for five years and that she was getting wages of Rs.3,000/-per month. But the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.D.Sankaran would very much assail the findings of the Commissioner by contending that he has not thoroughly scrutinised the circumstances in the case and he has wrongly decided that the applicant mother is dependent on the deceased which is in contravention of the provisions under the Workmans Compensation Act (hereinafter referred as Act). In Section 2 (1) (d) (iii) (b), the "dependent" means, "a parent of the deceased workman other than a widow mother". The learned counsel says that there is no clinching material to show that the applicant was living on the income of the deceased and that there is no sufficient pleading and evidence and also proof and hence it has to be decided that she is not at all the dependent to the deceased. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court reported in 1983 II M.L.J. Page 433 in Habeebulla Maricar v. Periswami and (1977) 2 M.L.J. 315 : Full Bench wherein it was held that having regard to Section 2 (1) (n) of the Act, it stands to reason that the person, who wants to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, can only be a dependent and nobody else. .7. In a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this court reported in 1994 II M.L.J. Page 61, The Special Officer V. Ayyammal, this court, following the principles laid down in the decision of Full Bench supra, held as follows - ."As laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in B.M.Habibullah v. Periaswamy, A.I.R 1977 Mad.330, only a dependent can claim compensation under the Act, in the light of what is contained in Secs.2(1)(n) and 8(4) of the Act. The Full Bench also points out, in the light of Sec.2 (1)(d) of the Act that a distinction has been made as to the categories of relations whose dependence is presumed by law vis-a-vis the deceased workman while in the case of categories of other relations, the dependency partially or wholly, coupled with the relationship has to be established by the claimants. Thus, for example, in the case of relations which alone the present case is concerned, the burden is on the claimants viz., the parents of the deceased workman in the present case to prove that they are either wholly or partially dependents on the earnings of the said workman at the time of her death. It is the duty of the claimants to plead that they were dependents. When they have not chosen to plead so, it is not for the appellant (employer) to plead that they were not dependents.” .8. What the more necessary is that it is to be seen whether sufficient pleadings are available and they have been elicited in the oral evidence to show that the claimants are dependents on the deceased and if there were failure on the part of the claimant to plead the fact, then it is to be concluded that they are not dependents. 9. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is to be noted that necessary pleadings are available in the petition. In paragraph 7 of the claim petition, it is stated that the deceased worker Shyamala Devi was the only working member in the family and there was no other income. In the cross examination, the respondent has stated that her husband is not going for any work. Cumulative effect of the above said pleading and oral evidence would show that the respondent is the dependent on the deceased. The substantial question of law No.1 is answered as indicated. 10. Coming to the liability of the respondent to pay compensation, it is the definite version of the respondent that the accident did not took place during the course of and out of employment. The fact remains that the deceased died of fire accident which suddenly and unfortunately took place during working hours inside the premises of the employer. She took a stove and attempted to lit and in that process fire spread over her resulting in her death. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that there is no necessity for the duty allotted to the deceased to lit a stove, that the stove is a condemned Nada stove which was kept in an almirah and that nothing prompted the deceased to lit it. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that there is no necessity for the duty allotted to the deceased to lit a stove, that the stove is a condemned Nada stove which was kept in an almirah and that nothing prompted the deceased to lit it. It is further stated that there might be some internal family quarrel or failure of love affair by means of which she might have taken the unfortunate decision of committing suicide. In order to show the fact, R.W.1 was examined who is the husband of the opposite party. He says that while the deceased was in the hospital, her mother and ladies were there and she told him that she committed wrong and that she may be saved. These specific averments are not mentioned in the counter. Hence, no credence could be attached to his oral testimony. 11. R.W.2 is the printer in the respondents establishment who says that in the factory, they are using kerosene, turban and chemicals and stove is not necessary for any employee and that the said stove belonged to one Jayakumar who was the erstwhile owner and that the stove was kept unused for four years. In the cross examination, he stated that there was no equipments to extinguish the fire and that it is not correct to suggest that because of the absence of safety equipments, the accident could have not been prevented. 12. In this context, the statement in the F.I.R. given by the deceased herself while she was in the infirmary is worth mentioning. In the F.I.R. she has consciously stated that she lit the stove for her work. The relevant portion in the F.I.R. comes thus - ,d;W gfy; Rkhh; 11½ kzpf;F vdf;fhf XJf;fg;gl;l gphpd;o; ntiyia bra;Jf;bfhz;oUe;jnghJ ntiyf;fhf mUfpy; ,Ue;j gk;g; !;lt;it gw;w itj;njd; gk;g; gz;Zk;nghJ jP vjph;ghuhj tpjkhf vd;nky; gpoj;Jf;bfhz;lJ. There is no ground to reject the statement of a dead person which is available in the F.I.R. From her statement, it comes to light that the pump stove is required for the work allotted to her. 13. There is no ground to reject the statement of a dead person which is available in the F.I.R. From her statement, it comes to light that the pump stove is required for the work allotted to her. 13. Even if it is stated that pump stove was not required for the duty, then there is no necessity for the employer to keep the stove in the work place and it can also be presumed that the employer has contributed to the accident by keeping the stove which is not at all necessary for the employment. 14. In view of the above said contents in the F.I.R, it has to be necessarily observed that there should not have been any representation by the deceased to R.W.1 that she committed mistake. In the cross examination, P.W.1, the claimant has stated that her daughter did not have any love affair. It is held that the accident took place during the course of and out of employment. The substantial question of law No.2 is answered as above. 15. In the above said circumstances, this court does not find any infirmity, factually or legally in the award passed by the authority below which deserves to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.