1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 692/2007 (M.S.E.D.C.L. Vs. Smt. Shahin Parvin Momtazkhan & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 13 th AUGUST, 2008. Heard Shri Moharir for the appellants. The appellants challenge the order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Yavatmal, on 28/2/2007, in W.C.A.C. No. 25 of 2005 whereby the appellants were directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,89,280/- along with interest thereon, to the respondents/claimants. The respondents/claimants are the legal heirs of one Mumtazkhan and were dependent on him. Mumtazkhan was working as Helper with the appellants and had been to Parwa to attend the complaint relating to electric repairs. While he was returning to Yavatmal on his two wheeler, in view of the accident caused by an unknown offending truck, Mumtazkhan was seriously injured and succumbed to the injuries. Since the death of Mumtazkhan occurred while he was returning from his duty at 2 Parwa to his headquarters, the legal heirs of Mumtazkhan filed an application for grant of compensation. The applicants were able to prove before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, that Mumtazkhan was 36 years of age at the time of accident and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-. It was the case of the appellants before the Commissioner that the headquarters of Mumtazkhan was at mouza Parwa and not at Yavatmal and, therefore, there was no question of Mumtazkhan returning to Yavatmal from Parwa after attending the complaint relating to electric repairs. The claimants examined the widow of Mumtazkhan by name Shahin Parvin and one Raju Atre who was Upsarpanch in village Parwa. The appellants examined one Prakash Padamwar who worked as a Junior Engineer with the appellants. It was deposed by the widow of Mumtazkhan as also the Upsarpanch of village Parwa, that Mumtazkhan resided at Yavatmal and used to come to Parwa for attending the complaints. Both these witnesses had deposed that nobody from the M.S.E.D.C.L. used to reside at Parwa. The Upsarpanch has further deposed that Mumtazkhan used to come to village 3 Parwa for attending the electricity complaints and on the date of incident, he had met Mumtazkhan at S.T. Stand of Parwa when Mumtazkhan was returning to Yavatmal. There was nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve the version in the examination-in-chief. In fact, the cross-examination of the Junior Engineer who was examined on behalf of the appellants, shattered the case of the appellants that the headquarters of Mumtazkhan was at Parwa. This witness admitted in his cross-examination that he had filed no document on record to show that the headquarters of Mumtazkhan was at Parwa. He also admitted that Mumtazkhan was not allotted any quarter at Parwa. Thus, the only defence of the appellants that the accident did not occur while Mumtazkhan was returning from Parwa where he was attending the complaint, was rightly disbelieved by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. In fact, the appellants had pleaded that the headquarter of Mumtazkhan was at Parwa and not Yavatmal. However, no such document was produced by the appellants before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. Thus, in these circumstances, it was necessary to draw an adverse inference against the appellants as they had failed to bring documentary 4 evidence for proving their defence. Even otherwise from the documents produced on record, the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation rightly held that Mumtazkhan met with an accident while he was on duty and was returning to his headquarters at Yavatmal after attending the electric complaint at Parwa. Since the findings recorded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation are pure findings of facts and since the first appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act lie before this Court only on a substantial question of law, this first appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP