Inderjeet Singh, J.

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 29.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Jaipur-II, Jaipur in case no. W.C.C./NF/107/2008.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a road accident during the course of his employment. In the claim petition, the claimant stated that he was engaged vehicle no. RJ-14-IG-4022 of the opposite party no. 1 & 2 and on 06.05.2007, the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on account of which he sustained serious injuries on different parts of his body making him permanently disabled, and unemployable for all times in future. He prayed for Compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/-.

3. The appellant-Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition and stated that the claimant has not sustained injuries during the course and arising out of the employment. Therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. The objection regarding violation of policy conditions was also taken.

4. The learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur-II, Jaipur, vide award dated 29th November, 2011 allowed the claim and awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,27,880/- along with interest @ 12% per annum.

5. Counsel for the appellant submits that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and owner of the vehicle. It was submitted that the claimant had sustained 80% permanent disability according to the certificate issued by the Medical Board, whereas the Commissioner has wrongly awarded compensation for 100% loss of earning capacity on account of injuries sustained by the claimant. Counsel further submits that the vehicle in question was insured in the name of Mr. Vinod Kumar Goyal (respondent no.3), whereas the claimant was employed with respondent no.2 (Harish Kumar). Counsel further submits that on account of transfer of the vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the transfree claimant.

6. None present on behalf of the respondent-claimant despite service.

7. Heard counsel for the appellant.

8. I have considered the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant regarding no relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle is not acceptable in view of the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner on issue no.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Golla Rajanna and Ors. v. The Divisional Manager and Ors., reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 in which para 10 has held as under:-

10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court Under Section 30 of the Act.

9. The next contention raised by the counsel for the appellant regarding wrongful assessment of the loss of earning capacity by the claimant in the accident as 100% is also not acceptable in view of the fact that the claimant has produced the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board in his favour wherein the Medical has found 80% permanent disability to the claimant. The Commissioner after considering the disability certificate and also considering the serious injuries such as fracture in Pelvis and injury in Urinary Bladder sustained by the claimant held that in future on account of said injuries the claimant was functionally c