JUDGMENT S.N. Satyanarayana, J.— Claimants in CR-33/2007 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bangalore, have come up in this appeal challenging the order dated 29.1.2008 rejecting their Claim Petition. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: The first claimant, M. Suvana is widow of late S. Narayanaswamy, claimant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the children of first claimant and deceased S. Narayanaswamy. The case of claimants is that S. Narayanaswamy was working in Motor Industries Company Limited (MICO) as an operator. He joined MICO in the year 1970 and as on 8.5.2002 he was working in PPI Department with his employer I.D. Number, EN. 63036. On 8.5.2002 at about 12.30 noon while he was in the premises of his employer and in the course of his employment, fell down from third floor of the building where he was working resulting in grievous injuries. Thereafter he succumbed to the said injuries. It is their case that at the relevant time of accident, he was working in PPI Department, the said accident has taken place due to failure on the part of his employer, in providing sufficient protection in the place of work in its factory premises, which resulted, in falling of S. Narayanaswamy from third floor of first Respondent's premises. Hence they filed Claim Petition seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 with interest. 3. In the said proceedings, Respondents entered appearance through counsel, filed statement of objection accepting deceased S. Narayanaswamy as employee of first Respondent-Company. They objected to fourth claimant joining others in the said petition as she was already married and not being dependent of deceased, as such was not entitled to seek any compensation. They also took up a contention that on 8.5.2002 deceased was assigned work in PPI Department, whereas accident has taken place in administrative block of first Respondent-Factory, where deceased had no business to go. Even otherwise if he has to go to the said building he will have to take necessary pass. The said building is about 300 meter away from the place where deceased was assigned to carry out the work at the relevant point of time and since S. Narayanaswamy was not given any work which requires his presence in administrative block, there is no nexus between the work assigned arid his presence in the place of accident. The said building is about 300 meter away from the place where deceased was assigned to carry out the work at the relevant point of time and since S. Narayanaswamy was not given any work which requires his presence in administrative block, there is no nexus between the work assigned arid his presence in the place of accident. It was also contended that the deceased was alcoholic, he was defaulter in repayment of loan taken for purchase of two-wheeler, he had suffered punishment for default in repayment of the same. Further on the ill-fated day, the deceased had no business to go near the administrative block. That the said person had gone to administrative block without any specific work, for the sole purpose of committing suicide. His fall from the third floor is not an accidental fail, it was a deliberate fall with an intention to commit suicide. 4. In the proceedings before the Commissioner on behalf of claimants, first claimant, M. Suvarna adduced evidence as P.W. 1 and relied upon 14 documents, which were produced and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-14. On behalf of Respondents, one Radhamani, a Social Counsellor working in the first Respondent - Factory was examined as R.W.I, another J. Bhaskar, Engineer of plan maintenance was examined as R.W. 2, and Dr. K.G. Poovaiah, Chief Medical Officer of first Respondent-Factory was examined as R.W. 3 and R. Nagesh Rao, working as Assistant Manager in the first Respondent factory was examined as R.W. 4, Captain Prakash R.M., working as Manager (Personnel Management) was examined as R.W. 5. Out of that, R. Ws. 2 to 5 were eye-witnesses to the accident.The Commissioner on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to answer all the issues against the claimants and by its order dated 29.1.2008 accepting the evidence available on record through R. Ws. 1 to 5 stating that, the deceased Narayanaswamy did not fall from the third Floor of Administrative Building from the first Respondent factory accidentally and that his fall from the said floor is by way of an attempt to commit suicide and accordingly dismissed the Claim Petition holding that there is no justification to seek compensation for the death of late Narayanaswamy due to his fall from III Floor of Administrative Building of first Respondent factory on 8.5.2002 at about 12.30 p.m. 5. Claimants being aggrieved by the said order, dismissing their Claim Petition has come up in this appeal on the ground that there is failure on the part of the Commissioner in appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record and that the issues framed for consideration were not based on the pleadings of the parties and due to non-appreciation of evidence and also due to improper inferences which worked erroneously against the interest of the claimants and accordingly the same is required to be set aside and the Claim Petition filed by them is required to be allowed. 6. This Court at the time of admission admitted this appeal to consider the substantial questions of law raised in the said appeal. After hearing the counsel appearing for Appellants and Respondents and on appreciation of grounds of appeal and the findings of the Commissioner, this Court feel the following question is required to be answered in this appeal: 1. Whether there is perversity in appreciation of evidence by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, which has resulted in rejection of claim made by Appellants herein before the Commissioner. On re-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record, this Court answer the aforesaid substantial question of law in the negative, for the following: Reasons 7. The fact that the deceased Narayanaswamy, husband of first claimant and father of claimant Nos. 2 to 4 was working as operator in the first Respondent factory is not in dispute. It is also riot in dispute that on the ill-fated day, i.e., on 8.5.2002 he was within the premises of first Respondent-factory in the course of his employment under the first Respondent. However, on perusal of the evidence available on record, it discloses that at the relevant point of time, the deceased was assigned work in P.P.I, department of first Respondent factory. It is seen that at around 12.00 noon he has gone to Administrative Block, situated 300 metres away from the place of his work. That he has gone to third Floor of the said building. As could be seen from the evidence of R.W.4, Nagesh Rao, deceased was standing near the window on third Floor of Administrative Building, in a depressed mood. He was repeatedly asking for time and had not moved from the said place for more than 15-20 minutes. That he has gone to third Floor of the said building. As could be seen from the evidence of R.W.4, Nagesh Rao, deceased was standing near the window on third Floor of Administrative Building, in a depressed mood. He was repeatedly asking for time and had not moved from the said place for more than 15-20 minutes. Even after Nagesh Rao went into his office and while coming back he was still standing in the same place. The evidence available on record disclose that he has fallen from the place where the window from which he has fallen down is placed sufficiently in a higher position. In the normal circumstances anybody standing near the said window will not fall from the said window unless he climb to the said window, otherwise the possibility of anybody falling out is not there. 8. The evidence of R.W. 1 discloses that the deceased was a chronic alcoholic and that he was into debt and added to that he was also having family problem, his daughter walked out of the family and got married with a person of her choice without the concurrence of the deceased and his wife. The evidence available on record also disclose that the deceased Narayanaswamy was mentally pulled down. In the background of aforesaid evidence, the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner to hold that the fall of the deceased Narayanaswamy from third floor of Administrative Building is not an accident, that it is a deliberate attempt on his part to commit suicide cannot be disbelieved. The evidence clearly discloses that the death of Narayanaswamy is only because of an attempt to commit suicide and not the cause of accidental fall from the third floor of administrative building of first Respondent factory as contended by claimants. 9. The findings of the Commissioner also clearly discloses that there is proper appreciation of pleadings and material evidence available on record by the Commissioner before coming to the conclusion that the Claim Petition filed by the wife and children of deceased Narayanaswamy is not maintainable for payment of compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore the Commissioner has rightly rejected the Claim Petition filed by them. Accordingly the substantial question of law framed as above is answered in the negative and consequently the appeal tiled by claimants is dismissed, without any order as to costs.