JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), in case No. 15 of 2006, dated 07.09.2009, vide which learned Commissioner has granted the following relief to the respondent/claimant. “Accordingly the petition is allowed and an amount of Rs. 1,79,956/- ( Rs. One lac seventy nine thousand nine hundred and fifty six only) is hereby awarded as compensation to the petitioner. Simple interest @ 12% from the date of filing the petition till to date is also allowed which works out to Rs. 82880/-. The respondent is hereby directed to deposit the amount of compensation and interest amounting to Rs. 2,62,835/- ( Rs. Two lac sixty two thousand eight hundred and thirty five only) with this court within a period of 30 days from the date of the order failing which the respondent shall also be liable to pay simple interest @ 12% p.a. on the basic amount of compensation from the date of the order till the actual date of deposit in this Court.” 2. The issue involved in this appeal is in a very narrow compass. It is not in dispute that workman Shri Gehru Ram who was serving as a Gramin Dak Sewak Mail Carrier since 27.09.1974, died in harness on 25.11.2003. It is also not in dispute that all the emoluments which otherwise were payable to the said workman in his capacity as a Gramin Dak Sewak were duly paid by the department. Present respondent filed an application under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for grant of compensation under the provisions of the said Act on the ground that the deceased was a workman as contemplated under the Act supra and the claimant was dependent on the deceased as defined in the Act supra. 3. The application so filed by the claimant was resisted by the department who inter alia took the stand before the learned Commissioner that the claimant did not fall within the definition of ‘dependent’ and also that the deceased was not workman. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Court below. “1. Whether the deceased Gehru alias Gehru Ram was a workman within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923? OPP 2. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Court below. “1. Whether the deceased Gehru alias Gehru Ram was a workman within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923? OPP 2. Whether the accident arose out of and in the course of deceased’s employment under the respondent? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner was dependent upon the deceased and was his legal heirs? OPP 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as claimed? If Yes; how much and from whom? 5. Relief.” 5. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, issues so framed were answered in the following manner. “Issue No. 1 :Yes Issue No. 2 :Yes Issue No. 3. :Partly yes, partly No. Issue No. 4. :Not maintainable. Issue No. 5 :No relief granted.” 6. Accordingly, the claim so preferred by the petitioner was allowed by learned Commissioner in terms of relief which already stands quoted above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the employer has preferred the present appeal. 8. This appeal was admitted on 04.08.2010 on the following substantial question of law. “Whether the deceased Gehru @ Gehru Ram was a workman within the meaning of Section sub clause (xiii) of Schedule-II of Section 2(1)(n)(ii) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 especially in view of the fact that the service conditions of the deceased were regulated by GDS (Conduct & Employment)Rules, 2001 which do not contain any provision for compensation.” 9. During the course of arguments, as the following substantial question of law was also involved in the case, the same was accordingly framed and learned Counsel for the parties were also heard on the said substantial question of law. “Whether the learned Commissioner erred in coming to the conclusion that the claimant was a dependent of the deceased as defined in Section 2(i) (d) of The Workmen’s Compensation Act.” 10. I have heard learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, as well as learned Counsel for the respondent and also gone through the records of the case as well as the order passed by the learned Commissioner. 11. Claimant who claims to be the daughter of the deceased has put forth her claim as being a dependent, as defined in the Act on the ground that she was a divorcee and was dependent upon the deceased for her livelihood when he died. 11. Claimant who claims to be the daughter of the deceased has put forth her claim as being a dependent, as defined in the Act on the ground that she was a divorcee and was dependent upon the deceased for her livelihood when he died. Issue No. 3 as was framed by learned Commissioner was decided by him by holding that the claimant was legal heir of the deceased-workman and dependency under Section 2(d) of the Act means “dependents at the time of death of the time of death of the deceased/workman.” Learned Commissioner further held that claimant had completed 24 years of age as on the date of death of the workman and therefore, she was a major. Actual findings returned in this regard are reproduced herein below. “I have perused the record of the case and have reconsidered the arguments put forth by the ld. Counsels for the parties in the case in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court in appeal filed by the applicant. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased workman and this has not been disputed even by the respondent. Dependency under Section 2(d) of the act means ‘dependents at the time of death of the deceased workman’. The petitioner had completed 24 years’ of age as on the date of death of the petitioner and was therefore a major. Without going into the validity of the divorce deed which, of course, is a civil matter, this tribunal had earlier held that a divorcee was a married woman and was a major at the time of death of the workman and as such was not covered within the definition of dependent as given in Section 2(d)(iii)(c) of the Act as only “minor married daughter” and “minor widowed daughter” where dependents under the Act. It was also opined that the words ‘married and a minor’ given in the definition were to be read conjunctively which would only make a married daughter who was a minor dependent. The Hon’ble High Court has not accepted this interpretation holding that this meaning cannot be ascribed to the provisions of the Act and was contrary even to the plain reading of what has been stated in the Section. The Hon’ble High Court has not accepted this interpretation holding that this meaning cannot be ascribed to the provisions of the Act and was contrary even to the plain reading of what has been stated in the Section. The interpretation placed by this court that it is only minor married daughter and minor widowed daughter can be treated as dependent has been found absurd by the Hon’ble High Court, making this court aware of the view that married daughter cannot be a minor and therefore the works ‘married’ and ‘a minor’ can not be read conjunctively. Implicitly, a married daughter would be covered within the meaning of a dependent under section 2(d)(iii)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, I am inclined to hold that the petitioner falls in the definition of the dependent as given in section 2(d)(iii)(c) of the Act. The respondent could adduce no evidence which could suggest that the divorcee was not dependent on the earnings of the deceased workman at the time of his death. As per the evidence on record the petitioner was the only legal heir dependent of the deceased and was living separately from her husband with her father at the time of the death of the workman. As such this issue is decided in affirmative.” 12. On these bases, learned Commissioner held that claimant was a ‘dependent’, as defined in Section 2(d)(iii) (c) of the Act and was entitled for the compensation in view of death of the workman in harness. 13. In my considered view, as is also submitted by learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, learned Commissioner has gravely erred in holding that the claimant was a ‘dependent’ within the meaning of Section 2(d) (iii) (c) of the Act. As per Clause (d) of Sub-section (i) of Section 2 of the Act, a dependent has been defined as under. 13. In my considered view, as is also submitted by learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, learned Commissioner has gravely erred in holding that the claimant was a ‘dependent’ within the meaning of Section 2(d) (iii) (c) of the Act. As per Clause (d) of Sub-section (i) of Section 2 of the Act, a dependent has been defined as under. “[(d) ‘dependent’ means any of the following relatives of a 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 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, (f) 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), reference to a son, daughter or child include an adopted son, daughter or child respectively;]” 14. A perusal of the above statutory provisions demonstrates that ‘'64ependent’ means following relatives of the deceased-workman. I. A widow, a minor (legitimate or adopted) son, an unmarried (legitimate or adopted) daughter, or a widowed mother; and II. A perusal of the above statutory provisions demonstrates that ‘'64ependent’ means following relatives of the deceased-workman. I. A widow, a minor (legitimate or adopted) son, an unmarried (legitimate or adopted) daughter, or a widowed mother; and 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; If wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death, then (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, (f) a minor child of a predeceased 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. 15. Now it is not the case of the claimant that she is covered under the definition of ‘dependent’, as given in Section 2((d) (i), 2(d) (ii) supra. As per learned Counsel for the claimant, she falls within the definition of ‘dependent’ as is envisaged in Section 2(d)(iii) (c). I am afraid that the said contention of learned Counsel for the claimant is totally unsustainable in law. This is for the reasons that any person who falls within the ambit of the categories, as are defined in points (a) to (h) in Section 2(d) (iii) of the Act, has to first satisfy the test that they were wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death. Learned Commissioner has erred in not appreciating that the claimant has miserably failed to prove before said authority that she was wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death. Learned Commissioner has erred in not appreciating that the claimant has miserably failed to prove before said authority that she was wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death. I have minutely gone through the records of the case and a perusal of the same demonstrates that save and except the bald assertions of the claimant, there is nothing on record from which it can be gathered that the claimant in fact was either in part or wholly dependent on the workman at the time of his death. It is not in dispute that the claimant was a married lady. Though in order to substantiate that she was dependent upon the workman, a so called divorce deed has been placed on record, however, this divorce deed, in my considered view, has no significance in the eyes of law. Claimant is a Hindu by religion which fact has not been disputed during the course of arguments and it had not been disputed that her husband is also a Hindu. Therefore, as divorce amongst the Hindus is governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, until and unless husband and wife are divorced in accordance with law as per provisions of The Hindu Marriage Act, it cannot be said that a marriage has been dissolved by way of a divorce on the basis of a divorce deed so produced by the parties. In fact this possibility cannot be ruled out that this so-called divorce deed was manipulated by the claimant just to substantiate her claim that she being a destitute lady and having been divorced was wholly dependent upon her father at the time of death of her father. There is no witness of the locality produced by the claimant before the learned Commissioner to substantiate that either at the time of death of her father, she was residing with him and or that she was dependent upon the workman wholly or in part at the time of his death. The alleged talak nama is on record as Ext. PW5/E. The same is dated 05.05.2003. The alleged talak nama is on record as Ext. PW5/E. The same is dated 05.05.2003. Now PW4 Devender Sharma, who was the former Pradhan of Gram Panchayat concerned in his examination in chief though has stated that Tulsi Devi was the legal heir of deceased Gehru Ram and was a divorcee, however, he nowhere stated in his examination in chief that at the time of death of Gehru Ram, Tulsi Devi was either residing with Gehru Ram or was dependent upon him (deceased-workman). Incidentally in his cross examination, he admitted the suggestion that Tulsi Devi had not shown any divorce deed to him and he was deposing that Tulsi Devi was a divorcee, simply on the information so given to him by Tulsi Devi. As I have already mentioned above, none of the witnesses produced by Tulsi Devi have deposed that at the time of death of Gehru Ram, Tulsi Devi was dependent upon Gehru Ram. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act are benevolent in nature, however, at the same time, one cannot be permitted to misuse the provisions of a benevolent Act as are contained in The Workmen’s Compensation Act. 16. It is settled principle of law that he who alleges has to prove. It was the case of the respondent/claimant that she was dependent of deceased-workman, however, this, in my considered view, she has miserably failed to prove. This important aspect of the matter has been totally ignored by the learned Commissioner. The earlier decision of this Court has been totally mis-read and mis-appreciated by the learned Commissioner while holding that claimant was dependent. While holding that present respondent was dependent of deceased Gehru Ram, learned Commissioner has totally mis-read and misconstrued the plain statutory provisions and ignored the fact that no evidence was led on record by the claimant to substantiate her claim. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is perverse and the findings returned by the learned Commissioner are not borne out from the records of the case. Though, in my considered view, respondent Tulsi Devi cannot be said to be dependent of deceased Gehru, however, Gehru Ram was a workman as defined under The Workmen’s Compensation Act. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 17. Though, in my considered view, respondent Tulsi Devi cannot be said to be dependent of deceased Gehru, however, Gehru Ram was a workman as defined under The Workmen’s Compensation Act. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 17. In view of above discussion, as the order passed by learned Commissioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law, the same is accordingly quashed and set aside and the appeal is allowed. No orders as to costs.