brother and the second respondent is the adopted minor son of the deceased. They had filed Ex.P3/Invitation of Ear-boring Ceremony of the second respondent and Ex.P4/ration card to show that the deceased was living with them. Ex.P5 would show that they had conducted the funeral of the deceased and had spent substantially for the same. Considering the above fact, the Tribunal held that the second respondent is the adopted son. At the same time, there is no dispute that the first appellant (since deceased) was the wife of the deceased. The only submission of the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is that the first appellant had not taken care of the deceased and she had deserted the deceased long before his death. In view of the admitted fact that the first appellant/Premayee is the wife, this Court is of the view that she would certainly be entitled to a share in the compensation and consequently, her legal heir, who was impleaded on her death, would be entitled to a share. Considering the fact that the deceased was living with the respondents 1 and 2, this Court is of the view that 1/3 of the compensation can be apportioned to the legal heir of the first appellant, (i.e.,) the second appellant. A sum of Rs.50,000/can be paid to the first respondent and the remaining compensation can be apportioned to the second respondent, who is the adopted son of the
