IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 832 of 2002(B) -------------------------------- WCC.82/1999 OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.. .................... APPELLANTS: APPLICANTS ---------------------------------------- 1. USHA A., W/O. RAJU, PULIMOOTTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHENAKADU, ANAKODU, PANNIYODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RENJITH, S/O. RAJU (MINOR), PULIMOOTTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHENAKADU, ANAKODU, PANNIYODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 3. RENJINI D/O. RAJU (MINOR) PULIMOOTTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHENAKKADU, ANAKADU, PANNIYODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND IS REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST APPELLANT BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN SRI.D.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. MOHANAN, NIRAVEL HOUSE, PAKKANDOM, KOODAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SHAJI, NIRAVEL HOUSE, PAKKANDOM, KOODAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL - R1 & R2 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.F.A. No. 832 OF 2002 --------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, in WCC No.82/99. The application for compensation was filed by the appellants on account of the death of the 1st appellant's husband while he was working under the opposite parties in the claim petition. According to them the accident took place on account of gun powder explosion while he was staying in the hut of the office of the opposite parties. It was totally denied by the other side. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on appreciation of evidence available held against the appellants. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has extracted the version of the 1st appellant regarding the accident. At the outset it has to be stated that she was not in the scene of occurrence and therefore she had no real knowledge about the accident. No other evidence is attempted to be adduced to prove the case. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has extracted the answers given by the 1st appellant. She would say in her evidence MFA No.832/02 2 that the accident took place from the quarry when the 1st appellant's husband entered for work at 8.30 a.m. But the case is that while he was residing in the hut provided by the opposite parties the unauthorised gun powder which got fired had resulted in the accident. The accident took place on account of the fact that the deceased was intoxicated and while they were residing in the shed there was fire on the hay stack on the shed and that has resulted in burn injuries. Whatever it may be, the evidence of AW1 is not sufficient to connect the opposite parties with the case. Similarly the first information report given after the accident by one Shanti who was residing near the place would also reveal that the cause of accident is not as spoken by AW1. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite parties would also submit before me that the criminal case has ended in acquittal. This court is now called upon to consider the question whether the materials available had been properly looked into for arriving at a proper decision and whether there is perversity in that approach. It has to be remembered that under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act unless there is substantial question of law an appeal cannot be maintained as well. The decision is arrived on MFA No.832/02 3 appreciation of facts and it has been held in very many decisions that when two different views are possible and one view is taken by the court below the appellate court shall not ordinarily interfere with the same and it will not be a substantial question of law. So from these materials I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the court below and as there is no substantial question of law involved, this MFA is dismissed without costs. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps