JUDGMENT G.D. Saxena, J. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1973 (for brevity the “Act”) has been preferred by the claimants being aggrieved by an order dated 13th August 2012 in a Case No. 43 B/WCA/F/12 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation No.2, Gwalior dismissing their application under Section 8 of the Act by holding that they were not the dependents as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. (2) Undisputed facts of the case are that deceased, Ajay Kumar Pushpad died on 5th January 2012 in the course of employment in an accident occurred on 12th December 2011 at his work place at Mihona, district Bhind. Admittedly, he was working as line attendant on contract basis under employment of M.P. Madhya Vidhyut Vitaran Company posted at Mihona district Bhind. On 12th December 2012, he was deputed to fix DO on electric poll. During working of removing default in electric line, he came into contract of the running electric current and was seriously injured. He was firstly admitted in J.A. Hospital Gwalior but thereafter for the best available treatment he was referred to T. Choithram Hospital, Indore. Due to misfortune, he expired during treatment in T. Choithram Hospital, Indore on 5th January 2012. It is also admitted that in response to the liability fixed under the provisions contemplated in the Act, the respondent- Company deposited Rs. 8,90,480/- before the court of Commissioner, Gwalior. (3) The deceased was unmarried. Appellants No.1 and 2 are his parents while appellants No.3 and 4 are brothers, who initiated the proceedings before the learned Commissioner claiming themselves to be legal representatives of the deceased. It is not in dispute that appellant No.1-father, namely, Dinesh Chandra is in service and so he is not dependent on the deceased. Similarly, appellant No.2-mother, namely, Smt. Nirmala and appellants No.3 and 4, i.e., brothers, namely, Vijay and Ajay are also not dependents being looked after by the appellant No.1. In such circumstances, the application filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 8 of the Act came to be dismissed on the ground that they are not legal representatives in the light of definition explained in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, hence, this appeal. In such circumstances, the application filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 8 of the Act came to be dismissed on the ground that they are not legal representatives in the light of definition explained in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, hence, this appeal. (4) Now, the question that calls for consideration is whether the appellant No.2-mother Smt. Nirmala Devi and minor brother Akshya Pushpad (appellant No.4) can be treated as wholly/partly dependents on the earnings of the deceased/workman, in the light of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act? Section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 is as follows:- 2. Definitions.-(1) In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context- (d) “Dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased [employee], namely- (i) a widow, a minor [legitimate or adopted] son, an unmarried [legitimate or adopted] 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 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, 4 Misc. Appeal 1096/12 (f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son, (g) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or (h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the workman is alive] Explanation.-For the purposes of sub-clause (ii) and items (f) and (g) of sub-clause (iii), references to a son, daughter or child include an adopted son, daughter or child respectively; (ff) “minor” means a person who has not attained the age of 18 years;] (5) In the case of Ramji @ another Vs. Lalit Kumar Bardiya @ another 1995 ACJ 877 facing the same situation, the controversy as involved in the present case has been answered by this court in the following words:- “7. Lalit Kumar Bardiya @ another 1995 ACJ 877 facing the same situation, the controversy as involved in the present case has been answered by this court in the following words:- “7. The relevant clause defining the word 'dependent' keeping in view the object of the Act and the facts as found, here, cannot be assigned a restricted meaning to include in the said expression only such parents who have actually received benefit fully or partly from the earnings of the deceased and to exclude such parents who in natural and normal course would have received such benefit from earning of the deceased but for some act or omission on cause attributable to the employer are deprived of such benefits from the deceased workman. 8. In my considered opinion to fulfill the above object of the Act, which is a beneficial legislation, the parents who did not get any advantage from earning of deceased but were entitled to receive the same in normal circumstances, are included in relevant definition clause of the word 'dependent' non payment of wages due to the deceased depriving the benefit of the earning of the deceased who are living jointly with them during his life time. His death deprived them of his monetary support for all time in future. Such parents should be held intended to be included in the definition of dependent under sub-clause mentioned above. Any other interpretation would work great injustice on parents who were deprived by the employer of the benefit of the earnings of deceased workman, who was not paid his dues towards wages in his life time, in compensation to such parents who actually received such benefit.” (6) Now, on going through the statements of the appellants/claimants and documents filed before the learned Commissioner, it is gathered that deceased/workman at the time of death was unmarried. At the time of death of deceased-workman, his father Dinesh alone was shown to be earning member in the family while his mother Smt. Nimala was doing household work and was not earning anything, so she was partially dependent on the earning of the deceased. Another claimant, i.e., appellant No.4-Akshay, who happened to be brother of deceased was minor at the time of death. Another claimant, i.e., appellant No.4-Akshay, who happened to be brother of deceased was minor at the time of death. Therefore, keeping in view the observations made by this court, in the case of Ramji (supra) both claimants, i.e. mother and brother Akshay can be held to be wholly or partly/dependents on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death. Consequently, they are held to be entitled to receive the amount of compensation deposited by the Company before the Commissioner. (7) Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed. It is held that the mother of deceased and his minor brother namely, Askshaya are entitled to receive compensation amount in the sum of Rs.8,90,480/- (Rs. Eight lac ninety thousand four hundred and eighty only) which was deposited before the learned Commissioner under Fixed Deposit in the Nationalized Bank. This amount shall be disbursed jointly/severally to these claimants by the learned Commissioner. The costs of the proceedings before Commissioner and of this court shall be borne by the respective parties.