Supported findings on dependency, employment, and income raise no substantial question of law.

The claimant sought compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, alleging that her brother, who had lived with and been cared for by her since infancy, was employed as a cleaner on a bus.

On 24 February 2006, while changing a punctured tyre on the employer’s instructions, the tyre burst and caused fatal injuries.

The Commissioner awarded Rs. 4,15,960, assessing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 4,000 and holding the insurer liable.

The insurer appealed under Section 30(1) of the Act, challenging dependency, the employment connection and the amount of compensation.

Whether the Commissioner was justified in finding that the claimant was a dependant of the deceased, including whether she had adopted him.

Whether the accident occurred in the course of the deceased’s employment.

Whether the compensation awarded was contrary to the material on record.

The appeal was brought under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, which provides for an appeal on a substantial question of law.

The Court applied the principle that factual findings supported by material on record are not open to interference in such an appeal unless they are perverse, unsupported or contrary to the evidence.

The claimant’s evidence, corroborated by two witnesses and the genealogical tree, supported the finding that she was the deceased’s sister and had cared for him from infancy; the absence of proof of formal adoption did not render the dependency finding perverse or unsupported.

Her testimony that the deceased worked as a bus cleaner and was changing the tyre on the employer’s instructions was not materially shaken in cross-examination, providing evidentiary support for the employment connection.

Although the claimant stated that the deceased earned Rs. 2,500 per month, she also testified that he received food and daily bhata; the Court therefore found no basis to treat the Commissioner’s Rs. 4,000 monthly-income assessment as excessive or contrary to law.

The challenges did not raise a substantial question of law warranting appellate interference.

Any amount deposited before the High Court was ordered to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Court for payment.