Harries, C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation granting the dependents of the deceased a sum of Rs. 1500/- as compensation with certain costs.
(2.) The case for the respondent was that the deceased workman was in the employment of the appellants as an electric mistry and that whilst he was following his employment on 1-10-1948, he was electrocuted and died as a result thereof. The respondent was the father of the deceased workman and a dependent.
(3.) The only point in the case was whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. There can be no doubt I think that the man was electrocuted and killed whilst in the factory. But it is suggested that he was there for his own purposes and not for the purposes of his employers. The case for the applicant was that the deceased workman with others was working overtime and that he was carrying an electric light the plug of which had been fitted into a socket in the manager's room. Apparently there was some defect in the flex and the man was electrocuted. If that version be true, there can be no question whatsoever that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. The defence was that these men were not working overtime and witnesses were called to establish that fact. It was however admitted that a book was kept showing the overtime and that book was not produced. That book was a vital piece of evidence and the learned Commissioner was entitled to presume that as it had not been produced, if it had been produced it would not have assisted the appellants' case. Whether or not these men were working overtime is a pure question of fact. It is true that there was only one witness for the respondent and a number of witnesses for the appellants, but the learned Commissioner who saw and heard the witnesses was entitled, if he thought right, to accept the evidence for the respondent. The question was a pure question of fact and from such a finding there is no appeal, if the findings are based on evidence and further there was no misdirection in law on the part of the Commissioner in approaching the evidence.;