JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed, the impugned Award/Judgment dated 04.04.2008 passed by the learned Commissioner below be set aside and the claim petition be ordered to be dismissed as against the appellant with costs throughout, and in the alternative the awarded compensation may please be reduced substantially besides shifting the entire liability of interest on the respondent insured.

The cost of the appeal may kindly be awarded in favour of the appellant."

2. The compensation to the tune of Rs.1,97,373 along with interest @ 12% per annum has been awarded.

3. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi Vs. Chhatra Devi, (2005) 6 JT 167 SC wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that without formulating substantial question of law appeal cannot be sustained.

4. Counsel for the respondent has further shown judgment of Jaipur Bench of this Court in M/s. Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer Vs. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi widow of Mool Chand & Anr., (1985) 1 WLN(Raj) 455 wherein this Court while dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act has laid down law that unless there was a question of public importance and there was no final interpretation available while the substantial question of law was arising, the appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be entertained. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows :-

"8. Moreover, under S. 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act only substantial questions of law can be agitated. In the present case, I am convinced that there is no substantial question of law involved.

9. The question of public importance and question on which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial question of law. Even if this definition is further extended, it will have to bear in mind that there is vast difference between the question of law and substantial question of law. It is only when the question of law is not well settled and it is of importance, it would become a substantial questions of law. The employer should not indiscriminately file appeals against poor workman's dependents. No notice is given before Fatal Accidents to the victim and how can want of notice to employer be fatal accident again, depriving compensation to unfortunate victims or dependents in cases of the Compensation Act."

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any substantial question of law in this appeal.

5. Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, no interference is called for in the present misc. appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

The stay petition also stands dismissed.