ORDER J.G. Chitre, J. 1. Heard Shri S. S. Samvatsar, for the appellants. Shri B. N. Barania, for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The appellants are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the award which has been passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Mandsaur in the matter of Case No. MCF 13/93 by which he dismissed the claim preferred by the appellants for getting compensation on account of death of deceased Babusingh @ Raghuvirsingh. The appellants averred that deceased Babusingh @ Raghuvirsingh was working in the slate pencil factory belonging to Bal Mukund and while serving as such he suffered a disease known as silicosus which resulted in his death somewhere in the year 1983. A petition was preferred for claiming compensation on account of his said accidental death. 2. After ding dong battle, lastly the present award has been passed by which the claim preferred by the appellant has been dismissed as it suffered infirmity on account of non-issuance of notice in view of provisions of section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as Act). 3. Shri S. S. Samvatsar, counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the Commissioner has not considered provisions of section 10 and section 10(l)(b) of the Act properly. He submitted that the evidence of Rukminibai and Kailash was proving that on the next day of the death of deceased Babusingh, Bal Mukund, the owner of the said factory had come to the residence of Babusingh with sum of Rs. 1,000/- which he wanted to offer to the parents of deceased Babusingh as compensation on account of death of Babusingh. Shri Samvatsar further submitted that the said visit of Balmukund was showing that he had notice of said accident and, therefore, the Commissioner was in error in dismissing the claim of the appellants in view of provisions of section 10 of the Act. Shri Samvatsar further argued that the Commissioner should have held that the infirmity of not issuing the notice was a condonable thing in view of the evidence of Rukminibai and Kailash. He finally prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be awarded properly to the appellants or the matter be remanded to the Commissioner for retrial. 4. Shri Samvatsar further argued that the Commissioner should have held that the infirmity of not issuing the notice was a condonable thing in view of the evidence of Rukminibai and Kailash. He finally prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be awarded properly to the appellants or the matter be remanded to the Commissioner for retrial. 4. Shri Barania, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the learned Commissioner has rightly disbelieved the evidence of Rukminibai and Kailash because there is discrepancy in the evidence of these two witnesses which cannot be patched up. He pointed out that the widow of deceased Jamnabai was examined and she did not state in her statement that Balmukund had come to their house with sum of Rs. 1,000/- which he wanted to pay to the parents or legal heirs of deceased Babusingh as compensation for his accidental death. Shri Barania further pointed out that it has come in the evidence of Jamnabai that her parents-in-law were residing separately from them long back. 5. After examining the evidence on record one will have to conclude that the story which has been put forth by the appellants that on the next day of the death of deceased Babu Singh, Balmukund had come to the house of Babusingh with sum of Rs. 1,000/- to offer as compensation for his accidental death, is nothing but a falsehood brought forth by the appellants for the purpose of saving them from the infirmity of not issuing the notice which should have been issued to the concerned persons in view of section 10 of the Act. Though it is accepted for the sake of arguments that Jamnabai and her parents-in-law were residing in different houses and, therefore, Jamnabai was not knowing anything about such visit of Balmukund the evidence given by Rukminibai and Kailash is not standing to the point of acceptability. Jamnabai and her parents-in-law were residing in the said village and they could not have been residing at a very long distance. Being residents of same village the information could have been easily passed by the parents-in-law to Jamnabai that Balmukund had visited their house with sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for accidental death of Babusingh. After lapse of some days, that would have made Jamnabai to state that Balmukund had so visited their house. Being residents of same village the information could have been easily passed by the parents-in-law to Jamnabai that Balmukund had visited their house with sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for accidental death of Babusingh. After lapse of some days, that would have made Jamnabai to state that Balmukund had so visited their house. It has come in the evidence of Rukminibai and Kailash that the father of Babusingh did not accept that amount as compensation and, therefore, Balmukund returned back and did not come back again to them. Had there been truth in the say of the appellants, Balmukund would have visited the house of Jamnabai also for the purpose of saving himself by saying that he had paid sufficient amount of compensation to the widow of the deceased. In that case Balmukund would have visited the house of Jamnabai and in that case Jamnabai would have stated about such visit of Balmukund. 6. Besides that it is the evidence of Rukminibai that when Balmukund had visited her house there was none present except the parents, but that is not the evidence of Kailash. According to the evidence of Kailash at that time he was present along with his parents. Had Kailash been present in the house, there was no reason for Rukminibai to omit his name when she was giving evidence about said visit of Balmukund. In fact, an adult boy like Kailash would have taken interest in the talks which might have been ensued between Balmukund on one side and parents of Babusingh on other side. 7. Learned Commissioner had considered the evidence of Rukminibai and Kailash and has rightly rejected their evidence. It is pertinent to note that the appellants had attempted to take shelter of possibility of notice being sent by the department but the Commissioner has considered that aspect of the matter also. 8. 7. Learned Commissioner had considered the evidence of Rukminibai and Kailash and has rightly rejected their evidence. It is pertinent to note that the appellants had attempted to take shelter of possibility of notice being sent by the department but the Commissioner has considered that aspect of the matter also. 8. Section 10 of the Act provides that - "No claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner hereinafter provided as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or in case of death, within two years from the date of death." Proviso to section 10 provides that - "The want of or any defect or irregularity in a notice shall not be a bar to the entertainment of a claim (a) if the claim is preferred in respect of the death of a workman resulting from an accident which occurred on the premises of the employer, or at any place where the workman at the time of accident was working under the control of the employer or of any person employed by him, and the workman died on such premises or at any such place, or any premises belonging to the employer, or died without having left the vicinity of the premises or place where the accident occurred (b) if the employer or any one of several employers or any person responsible to the employer for the management of any branch of the trade or business in which the injured workman was employed had knowledge of the accident from any other source at or about the time when it occurred." It is further provided that the - "Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given, or the claim has not been preferred, in due time as provided in this sub-section, if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or prefer the claim, as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause." 9. The two words which have been mentioned in the proviso as mentioned above 'satisfied' and 'due to sufficient cause' arc to be interpreted properly. The two words which have been mentioned in the proviso as mentioned above 'satisfied' and 'due to sufficient cause' arc to be interpreted properly. Satisfaction should be rational and while getting satisfied, the Commissioner has to look to the surrounding circumstances revealed by the case before him. For the purpose of finding out whether there has been a sufficient cause, he has also to be circumspective to the surrounding circumstances of the case. In the present case the appellants were harping on two fold grounds (i) The visit of the factory owner Balmukund to the house of parents of deceased Babusingh; (ii) Possibility of notice sent by the department. When they were harping on these points, it was their duty to bring such material before the Commissioner which would satisfy him reasonably about sufficiency of cause explaining their default of not sending the notice as required by section 10 of the Act. In such attempt they should have adduced the evidence which would have been created the confidence in the mind of a prudent person. A prudent person would not be wholly guided by emotions. He has to act on reason. He has to take shelter of reasonable analysis of the circumstances present around the subject matter to which he has to advert his attention. The Commissioner has, in the present case, considered all surrounding circumstances present around the points to which he was required to advert his attention. By appreciating the evidence of Rukminibai and Kailash, the Commissioner has rightly concluded that their evidence was not fit to be accepted. He has also pointed out in his judgment that no notice, sent by the department, was produced by the appellants which they could have done by either calling the concerned person to give evidence in their favour or asking him to produce such notice. Besides that, the appellants could have done that by making a simple request to Commissioner by moving an application to call concerned person of the department to state whether such notice if any, was issued. 10. The courts or tribunals are not guided by emotions. When the law provides issuance of such notice, it has to be complied with. If no notice has been issued, the claimants should produce such material before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner which would reasonably satisfy him on existence of sufficient cause for exonerating the claimants from such infirmity or irregularity. 10. The courts or tribunals are not guided by emotions. When the law provides issuance of such notice, it has to be complied with. If no notice has been issued, the claimants should produce such material before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner which would reasonably satisfy him on existence of sufficient cause for exonerating the claimants from such infirmity or irregularity. 11. Thus, in view of the discussion above, I do not find that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has committed any error in his judgment and in his act of dismissing the claim petition preferred by the appellants. Thus, this appeal deserves to be dismissed and stands dismissed. Keeping in view the tragic death of the deceased Babusingh @ Raghuvirsingh, no order as to costs of this appeal.