Mirsad Transport Pty Ltd v Singh

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Mirsad Transport Pty Ltd v Singh & Ors [2025] NSWPIC 254
APPLICANT:	Mirsad Transport Pty Ltd
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Gurmej Singh
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Harpinder Kaur
THIRD RESPONDENT:	Melissa Demity Leon Munoz
MEMBER:	Gaius Whiffin
DATE OF DECISION:	4 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for benefits in respect of the death of a worker; apportionment of lump sum payable under section 25(1)(a); consideration of respondents’ (dependants’) statutory declarations and other statutory declarations/statement evidence, claim correspondence, and factual material; consideration of who was dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death; consideration of appropriateness of apportionment agreed between the parties; Held – no other persons but the first and second respondents were dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death; the third respondent was not dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death; apportionment of the lump sum under section 25(1)(a) as agreed between the parties approved; awards entered in relation to the first and second respondents.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. That Randeep Singh (the worker) died on 24 August 2023 as a result of injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with the applicant, pursuant to s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the Act). 2. That the worker’s employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury, pursuant to s 9A of the Act. 3. That the first respondent was partly dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death. 4. That the second respondent was partly dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death. 5. That there were no other persons dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death. 6. That the applicant is liable to pay the amount of $891,100 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the Act. 7. That the amount of $891,100 is to be apportioned between the respondents as follows, pursuant to s 29 of the Act: (a) first respondent – 50%, and (b) second respondent – 50%. The Commission orders: 1. Pursuant to s 85A of the Act, the applicant is to pay the first respondent the amount of $445,550. 2. Pursuant to s 85A of the Act, the applicant is to pay the second respondent the amount of $445,550. 3. There will be no award entered in favour of the third respondent. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Randeep Singh (the worker) died at Neurea, New South Wales, in a motor vehicle accident on 24 August 2023 while working as a truck driver. There is no dispute that he was at the time in the course of his employment with Mirsad Transport Pty Ltd (the applicant).
The applicant has admitted liability for compensation flowing from the worker’s death pursuant to Part 3 Division 1 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). It has submitted an Application in Respect of Death of Worker (ARDW) to the Personal Injury Commission (Commission). The applicant has conceded that it is liable to pay an amount of $891,100 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act.
Replies to the ARDW have been lodged by two alleged dependants of the worker’s at the date of his death. Gurmej Singh (the first respondent) is his father, and Harpinder Kaur (the second respondent) is his mother. Melissa Demity Leon Munoz (the third respondent) is his ex-wife and was formally joined by me during the course of these proceedings. She has however not lodged a Reply, or appeared in the proceedings at all.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that these issues require determination by the Commission:
(a) Who was dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death?
(b) How should the amount of $891,100 be apportioned between those dependants, pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act?

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

These proceedings were listed before me for preliminary conferences on 30 October 2024, 27 November 2024, 19 February 2025, 30 April 2025, and 19 May 2025. During the preliminary conferences, my focus was upon ensuring that I had enough evidence to enable me to determine the issues referred to at paragraph 4 above. Directions were made following each preliminary conference in this regard.
On 16 January 2025, I also ordered the joinder of the third respondent to the proceedings pursuant to cl 62(1) of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (the Rules), as I considered that I did not then possess sufficient evidence in order to determine whether she was dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death. I ordered that the second respondent serve relevant documents in the proceedings upon the third respondent.
Despite making what I consider to be all reasonable attempts to serve the relevant documents in the proceedings upon the third respondent, and despite receiving assistance from the applicant in this regard, the second respondent has been unable to even locate the third respondent, let alone serve those documents upon her.
In those circumstances, I considered it reasonable for me to proceed to determine the issues referred to at paragraph 4 above, in the absence of the third respondent (especially as the second respondent was eventually able to provide evidence regarding her lack of dependency on the worker at the date of his death).
At the final preliminary conference on 19 May 2025, the applicant was represented by
Mr Studdert, solicitor; the first respondent was represented by Mr Shami, solicitor, and the second respondent was represented by Mr Khan, solicitor. Insurance representatives of the applicant’s (Ms Dean and Ms van der Zandt) were also present. Neither the first respondent nor the second respondent were present due to logistical issues in arranging their attendance as they permanently reside in India. Their daughter and the worker’s sister (Pardeep Kaur) represented them instead at the preliminary conference, as she resides in Australia. As noted, the third respondent was not represented.
The parties advised me that they had lodged all necessary evidence in the proceedings, and that I was now able to provide my decision in the proceedings. I advised that I would provide my decision ‘on the papers’ and without any formal conciliation/arbitration.
I was also advised of the following:
(a)    the parties present agreed that the relevant amount that the applicant was liable for in the proceedings pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act was $891,100;
(b)    the parties present agreed with me in relation to the issues which I needed to determine in the proceedings – as referred to at paragraph 4 above;
(c) both the first respondent and the second respondent confirmed that they did not make any claim for interest (pursuant to s 109 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act)) on any amounts awarded to them pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act;
(d)    both the first respondent and the second respondent also confirmed that they did not make any claims in the proceedings pursuant to either s 26 or s 28 of the 1987 Act;
(e)    both the first respondent and the second respondent requested that any amounts awarded to them pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act be paid to them directly in accordance with s 85A of the 1987 Act, and
(f)    both the first respondent and the second respondent advised that an agreement had been reached between them that the amount payable by the applicant under s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act be apportioned (subject to my approval) 50/50 between them in accordance with s 29 of the 1987 Act.
The documents to be admitted into evidence in the proceedings (see paragraph 14 below) were then agreed between the parties present.
Finally, I obtained some direct oral evidence from Pardeep Kaur, in order to satisfy me as to various issues.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before me and considered by me in making this determination:
(a)    the ARDW and its attached documents;
(b)    the first respondent’s Reply dated 12 November 2024 (first Reply) and its attached documents;
(c)    the second respondent’s Reply dated 19 November 2024 (second Reply) and its attached documents;
(d)    the first respondent’s Application to Admit Late Documents dated
26 November 2024 (first respondent’s AALD) and its attached documents;
(e)    the second respondent’s Application to Admit Late Documents dated
21 November 2024 (second respondent’s first AALD) and its attached documents;
(f)    the second respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated
7 February 2025 (second respondent’s second ALAD) and its attached documents;

(g) the second respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated
11 April 2025 (second respondent’s third ALAD) and its attached documents, and
(h) the second respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated
19 May 2025 (second respondent’s fourth ALAD) and its attached documents.

Oral evidence

As indicated, I asked Pardeep Kaur some brief questions during the preliminary conference on 19 May 2025. I was satisfied that considering her relationship with the worker as well as her knowledge of his familial situation, she would be able to provide me with reliable evidence. She confirmed:
(a)    the worker’s grandparents had passed away prior to his death;
(b)    the worker did not have any children, and
(c)    the worker had not been married or had any other partners, other than the third respondent.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Who was dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death

Section 25 of the 1987 Act provides:
“(1) If death results from an injury, the amount of compensation payable by the employer under this Act shall be-
(a) the amount of $750,000 (the ‘lump sum death benefit’) [amount since adjusted], which is to be apportioned among any dependants who are wholly or partly dependent for support on the worker or (if there are no such dependants) paid to the worker's legal personal representative…”
Section 4 of the 1998 Act then defines a dependant as follows:
“‘dependants’ of a worker means such of the members of the worker's family as were wholly or in part dependent for support on the worker at the time of the worker's death, or would but for the incapacity due to the injury have been so dependent…”
I am comfortably satisfied that the first respondent was wholly or partly dependent for support on the worker at the date of the worker’s death. He has provided two statutory declarations in this regard, the first dated 10 January 2024 (found at page 15 of the ARDW) and the second dated 12 November 2024 (found at page 2 of the first respondent’s AALD).
He is the father of the worker, and currently aged 65-years-old. He is retired. He has been married to his wife (the second respondent) for 39 years and resides with her in India. He declares that the worker “use to send money for our living expenses regularly and we were largely financially dependent upon him up until his death”. He declares his and his wife’s living expenses to be around $1,500 per month, and advises that this amount was “largely” paid by the worker to them. He also declares that additional amounts would be sent to them by the worker “if we need to attend family events where we traditionally offer gifts and cash”. He further declares that the worker used to telephone him and his wife in India weekly.
I am also comfortably satisfied that the second respondent was wholly or partly dependent for support on the worker at the date of the worker’s death. She has provided two statutory declarations in this regard, the first dated 10 January 2024 (found at page 12 of the ARDW) and the second dated 20 November 2024 (found at page 7 of the second respondent’s first AALD).
She is the mother of the worker, and currently aged 69-years-old. Her evidence is entirely consistent with the evidence provided by the first respondent, and she also declares:
“I was always a housewife and never performed paid worked. My husband and I were financially dependent upon my late son Randeep Singh who use to send money on monthly basis for our maintenance in India.”
Pardeep Kaur’s 12 November 2024 statutory declaration (found at page 5 of the second respondent’s first AALD) also supports the dependency status of the first respondent and the second respondent on the worker at the date of his death. She declares that they relied upon the worker to send monies to them “for their survival on monthly basis”. She remembers the average amount sent to be $1,000 per month, and clarifies that they had no other source of income.
In relation to other potential dependents, I note:
(a)    the worker’s grandparents are deceased, according to the oral evidence given by Pardeep Kaur;
(b)    the worker only had one sibling, Pardeep Kaur, according to her statutory declaration dated 12 November 2024 as well as the statutory declaration of the first respondent dated 12 November 2024 - in her 12 November 2024 statutory declaration, Pardeep declares that she does not claim compensation in relation to the death of her brother – she also declared an early statutory declaration dated 26 August 2024 (found at page 18 of the ARDW) in which she declared that she had finished her studies, was working full-time, and had been financially independent since November 2023 – there is a suggestion in her 26 August 2024 statutory declaration that she may have been partly dependent on the worker at the date of his death (as he assisted her with her then studying expenses), but in the absence of further information as to this assistance and considering her declared desire not to claim compensation in relation to the death of her brother, I am not persuaded that she was dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death;
(c)    the worker had no children, according to both the oral evidence given by Pardeep Kaur as well as her statutory declaration dated 12 November 2024, and the two statutory declarations each from the first respondent and the second respondent, and
(d)    the worker was only married once (to the third respondent), according to both the oral evidence given by Pardeep Kaur as well as her statutory declaration dated 12 November 2024, and the first respondent’s 12 November 2024 statutory declaration and the second respondent’s 20 November 2024 statutory declaration.
In relation to the third respondent, as stated (see paragraph 7 above), I believe that all reasonable attempts have been made to locate her and advise her as to the nature of these proceedings, by both the applicant and the second respondent. There is in this regard:
(a)    an investigation report prepared by Procare dated 11 December 2024 (found at page 3 of the second respondent’s second ALAD) - the report refers to searches of residential databases, tenancy records, social media, ABN records, licensing records, and electoral records – a potential address for the third respondent in Ingleburn is suggested and two potential email addresses for her are also suggested;
(b)    an email from Melissa Demity dated 3 February 2025 (found at page 10 of the second respondent’s second ALAD) - in which she advises that she is not the third respondent - her email address was one of the ones suggested by Procare;
(c)    a process server’s report from Nautilus Investigations Pty Ltd dated
6 February 2025 (found at page 11 of the second respondent’s second ALAD) - in which it advises that the potential address for the third respondent suggested by Procare was attended by one of its process servers, and the process server was informed that the third respondent was not residing at that address, and
(d)    a statement from the second respondent’s solicitor, Ejaz Khan, dated
10 April 2025 (found at page 2 of the second respondent’s third ALAD) - the statement advises that the solicitor:
(i)on 7 April 2025, telephoned Roger from a takeaway shop in Croydon Park where he had been advised that the worker and the third respondent used to meet – Roger confirmed that the third respondent had previously visited his shop, but not in the previous 10 years;
(ii)on 12 March 2025, obtained a report that he had requested from Service with Service - the report advised that numerous database searches for the third respondent had been conducted – the only information that could be provided was that the third respondent seemed to have a Facebook account and seemed to reside in Dubai;
(iii)on 14 March 2025, messaged the Facebook account provided by Service with Service for the third respondent (appropriately advising as to the nature of these proceedings and requesting that she contact him if she wished to claim compensation in the proceedings) - but received no reply, and
(iv)“cannot think of any other way to locate the third respondent to serve documents”.
Despite the absence by the third respondent from participation in these proceedings, I am satisfied that I have sufficient evidence to find that she was not dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death. In this regard, I note that they were married on
13 August 2013 (according to their marriage certificate found at page 2 of the second respondent’s first ALAD) and a formal divorce order was made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 25 February 2018 (found at page 3 of the second respondent’s first ALAD). The divorce order refers to there being no children of the marriage, and is silent as to whether any financial settlement was necessary.
The divorce therefore occurred over five years prior to the worker’s death, and if there had been any ongoing financial relationship between the third respondent and the applicant after the divorce, I am satisfied that it would have been apparent to the first respondent, to the second respondent, and particularly to Pardeep Kaur. The evidence of the first respondent and the second respondent is that the worker telephoned them at least weekly prior to his death, and Pardeep Kaur in her 12 November 2024 statutory declaration declares:
“I came to Australia in October 2018 for study with my husband…After my arrival in Australia, I spoke to my late brother regularly over the phone before his death. I am aware that my brother was married in 2013 with Melissa Munoz and divorced on 24 January 2018…As far as I am aware my late brother did not have any children from his marriage, nor did he buy any property together with his then wife…As far as my knowledge concern after the separation Melissa Munoz disappeared and never contacted with my late brother or any family member here or India. I do not expect Melissa to claim share in the estate of late Randeep Singh as they were divorced about 6 years before his death.”
Further, there is also in evidence before me a statement from Vikramjeet Singh dated
19 May 2025 (found at page 2 of the second respondent’s fourth ALAD). He advises that he lived in Australia from 2006 to 2018, and resided with the worker (initially in a flat at Ashfield and then in a flat at Lidcombe) between 2012 and 2018. He was the worker’s best man “at the marriage celebrant house” when the worker was married in 2013. He advises:
“This marriage was a marriage of convenience to submit spouse visa application for him. He never lived with her or she came to live with him, however Randeep told me that he met with her time to time and pay her money…I am aware that in 2016, Randeep filed divorce as the marriage did not work for him and she disappeared soon after the marriage. Randeep had no contact with her since separation I remember he was facing difficulties in serving divorce documents upon her because she disappeared without leaving any contact…During my stay with late Randeep I never seen any women claiming to be a spouse of him ever visited or called.”

Finally, there is also in evidence before me a statement from Kulwinder Singh dated
18 May 2025 (found at page 6 of the second respondent’s fourth ALAD). He advises that he has resided in Australia for over 17 years, and knew the worker for more than 15 years before the worker’s death. Until 2015, he would be in telephone contact with the worker almost daily, and he visited the worker regularly. His contact with the worker was then reduced between 2015 and 2018 due to his family commitments, but they nevertheless “stayed in touch over the phone”. However, from 2018 until COVID-19 hit, their contact increased again, and they used to meet weekly and telephone each other almost daily. He supports the statement of Vikramjeet Singh regarding the nature of the marriage between the worker and the third respondent, and he advises:
“In or about 2013, he told me that he has an Australian girl willing to sponsor him to lodge a spouse sponsored visa for a cost. I am aware that he got married about that time with this Australian girl. I never met her, nor have I ever seen her photo…During the period between 2013 to 2015, I have not seen anyone living with him or being introduced by Randeep as his wife…I never observed or ever met any female at his house or otherwise to be known as his wife…Late Randeep was always talking to me about his personal and financial affairs.”
After reviewing all the evidence before me therefore, I am satisfied that the relationship between the worker and the third respondent was not a relationship that involved any form of ongoing financial support being provided to her. There is no evidence that she ever lived with the worker, or was even in contact with him for many years prior to his death. The statements from Vikramjeet Singh and Kulwinder Singh are consistent in their description of the marriage between the worker and the third respondent as being one of convenience, and in the circumstances, I accept this evidence. They were both very close to the worker at the time of his marriage and in the years thereafter, and they are both therefore able to provide reliable evidence as to his circumstances.
Having found the third respondent not to be dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death, I find that there were no other persons dependent for support on him at the date of his death other than the first respondent and the second respondent.

How should the amount of $891,100 be apportioned between the first respondent and the second respondent, pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act

Section 29 relevantly provides:
“(1) The compensation payable under this Division to each dependant of a deceased worker may be apportioned by the Commission or by the NSW Trustee.
(1A) The lump sum death benefit payable under this Division is not to be apportioned if a deceased worker leaves only one dependant (whether wholly or partly dependent on the worker for support) and the whole of the lump sum death benefit is to be paid to that one dependant.
(1B) In apportioning the lump sum death benefit payable under this Division between 2 or more dependants, the whole lump sum death benefit is to be apportioned among those dependants (so that the sum of the apportioned amounts equals the full lump sum death benefit).”
As indicated at paragraph 11(f) above, the first respondent and the second respondent have agreed an appropriate apportionment of the lump sum under s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act. The agreement in this regard is:
(a) first respondent – 50%, and
(b) second respondent – 50%.
The agreement is also referenced and consented to in the first respondent’s
12 November 2024 statutory declaration and the second respondent’s 20 November 2024 statutory declaration.
I consider this proposed apportionment to be a sound apportionment of the appropriate lump sum having regard to the dependency level on the worker of each respondent. According to their statutory declarations, they received the amounts provided to them by the worker together, and used the amounts to pay their combined living expenses. They have been married for 39 years, neither of them work or have any source of income, and they are around the same age. There is no evidence that either of them was more dependent on the worker, or would in the future have been more dependent, that the other.
The evidence before me (including Pardeep Kaur’s 12 November 2024 statutory declaration) is clear in its support for the proposition that they should therefore be considered to be equally dependent on the worker at the date of his death. I therefore propose to approve the apportionment agreed between the parties.

SUMMARY

I find that the worker died on 24 August 2023 as a result of injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with the applicant, pursuant to s 4 of the 1987 Act.
I find that the worker’s employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury, pursuant to s 9A of the 1987 Act.
I find that the first respondent was partly dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death.
I find that the second respondent was partly dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death.
I find that there were no other persons dependent for support on the worker at the date of his death.
I determine that the applicant is liable to pay the amount of $891,100 pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the 1987 Act.
I determine that the amount of $891,100 is to be apportioned between the respondents as follows, pursuant to s 29 of the 1987 Act:
(a) first respondent – 50%, and
(b) second respondent – 50%.
There will be an award that the applicant pay the first respondent the amount of $445,550.
There will be an award that the applicant pay the second respondent the amount of $445,550.
There will be no award entered in favour of the third respondent.

[2025] NSWPIC 254

4 June 2025