Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This appeal against an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act is by the insurer. Valid insurance cover is not in dispute.

2. The only plea of the appealing insurer is that the death of the victim was not on account of any activity which can be called as one that arose in the course of employment. No elaboration is required to state that this is essentially a question of fact, unless, of course, it is established that an error of law has been committed in the appreciation of evidence. Also, when Evidence Act does not apply, principles of fairness and fair play, reasonableness, exclusion of perversity in adjudication, availability of evidence, etc. would govern the issue as to whether this Court would interfere, holding that a substantial question of law arises for decision in such an appeal.

3. The first claimant, the mother of the deceased deposed as AW1. AW2 spoke as an independent witness regarding the incident.

4. The insurer did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary. However, it had argued that the evidence on record does not show that the incident was in connection with the employment and that it can be seen that the situation was otherwise.

5. The owner of the Jeep did not dispute the fact that the deceased was the driver of the Jeep. In fact, the insurer also did not dispute that aspect.

6. The oral evidence of the witnesses who deposed were considered by the Commissioner in the context of the documentary evidence. The impugned award was passed, essentially, on appreciation of the evidence on record.

7. The case found, on evidence, by the Commissioner, is that after the day's work, the vehicle not having a cleaner, the deceased driver took it to a river side for wash and that it was a matter in the course of the duties of the driver, to clean the vehicle and maintain it appropriately. On such view, the Commissioner found, on facts, that the victim had cleaned the vehicle taking water from the river. Appreciating the evidence of AW2, the occurrence witness, the Commissioner held, on facts, that it is a case where the victim died drowning during the course of his activities, which had reasonable nexus to the continuity of his duties as a driver of the vehicle in question. Even if it is a case where he had gone for a dip in the river, after washing the vehicle, we are of the view that such situation cannot be excluded from the continuity of the chain of events in connection with the employment. If an employee, in the course of his employment, gets dirty, he has necessarily to wash his body and clothes. This is basic. Shall we quote labour rights or human rights? Judicial conscience, to our mind, is crystal clear, in this regard, that going by the well settled principles relating to labour management, provisions for such facilities are contemplated in favour of the labour force.

8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we do not find that the evidence, or the facts, have been appreciated so capriciously or perversely that it has to be visited by holding that the appreciation of evidence is contrary to well settled principles of law. We do not find any substantial question of law arising for decision on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence by the Commissioner. Therefore, the appeal has to, essentially, fail.

9. Along with I.A.No.2949 of 2011, the appellant-insurer has produced certain documents. They are part of the police papers, including statements recorded by the police under section 162 Cr.P.C. Reference is made to one of those statements and the documents which are sought to be admitted as additional evidence.

10. The appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act is provided to the High Court. This means that it is an appeal to an established court, prescribing only a limitation as to conditions for entertaining it; that is to say, that such an appeal would lie only on a substantial question of law. Otherwise, the procedure for considering suc