' This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order dated 17th June, 1984 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Gujrat, whereby an amount of Rs, 13,500 was awarded as compensation for the loss of the life of Sadiq Masih, husband of the respondent, who is alleged to have died on 13th October, 1979 of an accident that took place on 11th October, 1979 while the deceased was on duty.
2. The case of the respondent was that while the deceased was cleaning an out let he fell in it and injured. He died of the injuries on 13th October, 1979. On the other hand the case of the appellant is that no accident took place and that the deceased died of heart failure on 6th October, 1979.
3. Under section 30 appeal lies on a legal point only. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that any part of evidence had been misread by the learned lower Court. The learned Commissioner has rightly observed that Exh. R-2 is not a genuine docu ment. The deceased was marked present from 4th October, 1979 to 11th October, 1979 by putting letter 'I' but later on a slanting line was added to it on the left and a small horizontal line was drawn between the two verticle lines to read it as `A' which is an abbreviation of 'absent'. No interpolation was made in the column meant for the date of 13th, which is the date of death of the deceased. Letter 'A' put in column of the date of 13th is quite different from the said letters appearing in the column meant for the dates of 9th to 11th. So evidently interpolation was made by the appellant to give coincidence to Exh. R. 2 with the plea that the deceased had died on 6th October, 1979. Another document Exh. R-1 was produced by the appellant alleged to be the application given by the respondent for the dues of the deceased. The date of death is given as 6th October.
1979. The respondent has disowned this application but no attempt was made to get the thumb- impression appearing on its original compared with any specimen thumb-impression. Copy of death entry has also been produced by the appellant but it has not been proved that it relates to the deceased. It purports to show that ane Chiragh Masih got the death entry of one Sadiq Masih made in the register but he was not examined to prove the entry. In the absence of evidence that actually Chiragh Masih bad got the entry made, it cannot be said firstly that it relates to the deceased and secondly that the cause of death was given by the said Chiragh Masih. Possibility cannot be excluded that this entry too was made at the instance of some employee of the appellant as interpolation was made in the attendance register, photo copy of which is Exh. R.
2.
4. So far as oral evidence is concerned, since it has been believed by the learned Commissioner, in appeal different view cannot be taken. Even on facts the finding appears to be correct.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.