JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the rendition of the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Sub-Division Shimla (for short “the Commissioner”) of 9.7.2008 in Case No. 5/2001 whereby he dismissed an application preferred before him for assessment of compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short “the Act). 2. Uncontrovertedly, the demise of deceased Chandermani stood begotten in sequel to his sustaining multiple injuries in an accident which occurred at Baldeyan Thailla Road on 27.6.2001. Undisputedly his demise occurred during the course of his performing his duties as a driver in vehicle bearing No. HP-07-4520 in capacity whereof he stood engaged by respondent No.1 its owner. During the course of his employment under respondent No.1 he sustained fatal injuries in an accident involving the vehicle aforesaid. The apposite petition instituted before the learned Commissioner was initially by appellant No.1 herein (for short ‘the petitioner No.1’) who contended of hers standing related to the deceased as his widow. The mother, brothers and father respectively of deceased Chandermani stood impleaded in the array of petitioners on the apposite application for their impleadment standing allowed by the Commissioner. A contention is raised before this Court on their behalf qua theirs being dependant upon the income reared by the deceased from his standing engaged by respondent No.1 as a driver in the vehicle aforesaid. Preeminently as afore-stated petitioners No.2 to 5 and respondent No.3 herein stood not initially arrayed as petitioners alongwith petitioner No.1 in the petition instituted before the learned Commissioner by petitioner No.1. Their impleadment occurred only on an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. standing allowed by the learned Commissioner. However, the mere factum of the learned Commissioner permitting theirs being added or arrayed in the array of petitioners would not per se relieve them of their enjoined obligation of proving the factum of theirs being dependent upon the income reared by the deceased from his avocation as a driver in the ill-fated vehicle. Leaving aside the factum of theirs not discharging the onus cast upon them to prove their dependency upon the income reared by the deceased, they even omitted to institute apposite pleadings before the learned Commissioner portraying therein of theirs being dependent upon the income of the deceased as stood reared by the latter from his avocation as a driver in the ill-fated vehicle. In sequel, the learned Commissioner did not commit any gross fallacy in concluding of the mere impleadment of the aforesaid in the array of petitioners alongwith Santoshi Devi hence, disentitling them to claim assessment of compensation in their favour rather the aforesaid conclusion formed by the Commissioner holds immense legal worth especially when they omitted to institute apposite pleadings before him besides obviously omitted to discharge the ensuing onus as may hence have stood enjoined upon them qua theirs being dependent upon the income of the deceased whereupon alone compensation was assessable in their favour. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends of the refusal on the part of the learned Commissioner to assess compensation in favour of Gulabo Devi is bereft of tenacity. He has argued of no worthy evidence existing on record in portrayal of Gulabo Devi not holding any relationship, with the deceased in the averred capacity of hers being his real mother. In sequel he contends of an inference standing warranted from this Court of Gulabo Devi being the real mother of the deceased whereupon he further espouses of hers standing while dependent upon his income entitled to claim assessment of compensation in her favour on his demise. For contesting the tenacity of aforesaid submission a perusal of the award of the learned Commissioner is imperative, perusal whereof unveils the apparent fact of respondent No. 1 herein contesting the factum of Gulabo Devi being the real mother of the deceased. The contest in the aforesaid regard by the learned counsel for the respondent constrained the learned Commissioner to direct the petitioners to clarify the contentious issue. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners omitted to clarify the contentious issue devolving upon the factum of Gulabo Devi being or not being the real mother of the deceased. Consequently, the omission in the aforesaid regard by the learned counsel for the petitioner comprised in his abstaining to adduce cogent material on record in portrayal of Gulabo Devi holding a relationship with the deceased in the averred capacity of hers being his real mother constrains this Court to form a conclusion of the petitioner concerned holding no worthy evidence in portrayal of hers holding a relationship with the deceased in the averred capacity of hers being his real mother. Moreover RW-2/A not depicting the factum of Gulabo Devi standing recorded therein as mother of deceased Chandermani upsurges an inevitable inference of the respondent No.1 succeeding in proving the factum of Gulabo Devi not holding any relationship with the deceased in the averred capacity of hers being his real mother. In aftermath the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner for ousting the claim of Gulabo Devi qua compensation standing assessable in her favour on demise of Chandermani is not ridden with any vice of infirmity, necessarily hence it warrants its standing not reversed by this Court. 4. At this stage, it is imperative to advert to the apposite factum recorded in Ex.RW-2/A wherein Santoshi Devi stands depicted therein to be the wife of the deceased. The counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 contends to shred apart the reflections cast in Ext.RW-2/A by alluding to the echoing with equivocation by Gulabo Devi in her testimony embodied in her cross-examination of hers being unaware qua the factum of Santoshi Devi after the demise of Chandermani solemnizing a second marriage besides of hers equivocating qua hers staying in her newly acquired matrimonial home is personificatory of Santoshi Devi after the demise of chandermani solemnizing a second marriage, with a sequel of hers being neither the legal representative of the deceased at the apposite stage of the institution of the petition before the learned Commissioner nor hence, she is to be construable to acquire any capacity as his legal representative for warranting the learned Commissioner to assess compensation in her favour rather it is contented of her claim for compensation on demise of Chandanmani the formers husband entailing its facing the axe of dismissal, as aptly done by the learned Commissioner. However, the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 is insufficient to sway this Court to hold a conclusion thereupon of the respondents concerned succeeding in proving the factum of after demise of Chandermani, Santoshi Devi solemnizing a second marriage. The apposite evidence in regard aforesaid stood constituted by adduction into evidence by the respondent concerned of the apposite Pariwar Register in personification of Santoshi Devi after demise of Chandermani living with her newly wedded husband. However, the aforesaid evidence remains un-adduced on record. The apposite evidence in regard aforesaid stood constituted by adduction into evidence by the respondent concerned of the apposite Pariwar Register in personification of Santoshi Devi after demise of Chandermani living with her newly wedded husband. However, the aforesaid evidence remains un-adduced on record. It appears that in a mere mechanical fashion the respondents No.1 and 2 by depending upon an equivocal testimony of Gulabo Devi qua the factum of Santoshi after the demise of Chandermani solemnizing a second marriage have concerted to oust her claim for compensation whereas when the best evidence for clinching the aforesaid facet stood embodied in adduction into evidence by the respondent concerned, the afore referred apposite Pariwar Register maintained with the Panchayat concerned whereat Santoshi Devi extantly resides after demise of Chandermani with her newly wedded husband whereas it remaining un-adduced it would be improper to conclude of Santoshi not being the surviving widow of the deceased, also it has to be inferred therefrom of the learned Commissioner erroneously on the demise of her husband rejecting her claim for compensation. Moreover, with reflections in Ext.RW-2/A of Santoshi Devi standing depicted therein to be the wife of the deceased when stand unshred of their efficacy by adduction into evidence of the aforesaid best evidence, in sequel, it alone constitutes formidable evidence for thereupon this Court clinching a firm finding of Santoshi Devi being the surviving widow of the deceased besides hence hers being his legal representative also, as such, hers on his demise standing entitled to assessment of compensation in her favour. Even if assumingly Santoshi Devi is residing in her parental home nonetheless the mere factum of hers residing thereat would not deprive her besides would not oust her to claim compensation on demise of her deceased husband, hers for reasons afore-stated holding the capacity of hers being his legal representative. 5. In view of the above, the present appeal is party allowed. The impugned award is interfered with to the extent that the rejection of the claim for compensation by the learned Commissioner qua Santoshi (appellant No.1) is set aside. However rejection by the learned Commissioner for claim for compensation by the petitioners other than Santoshi (appellant No.1) is maintained and affirmed. The impugned award is interfered with to the extent that the rejection of the claim for compensation by the learned Commissioner qua Santoshi (appellant No.1) is set aside. However rejection by the learned Commissioner for claim for compensation by the petitioners other than Santoshi (appellant No.1) is maintained and affirmed. The amount of compensation is ordered to be paid to Santoshi in accordance with Section 4(1) and schedule IV Factor 216.91 at the age of 25 by respondent No.2 herein (Oriental Insurance Company). All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.