JUDGMENT :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. The present civil misc. appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 01.11.2006 passed by the Court of Learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, District Jaipur, Jaipur [for short ‘the learned Commissioner’] in Case No. W.C.C.F. 4/2004, by which the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents has been allowed and the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,38,880/- with interest @ 12% per annum.

2. The issue involved in this appeal is that whether appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is maintainable without framing any substantial question of law?

3. Brief facts of this case are that one Gopiram was employed with respondent No. 6-Mangal Chand while he was working as a cleaner on 08.04.2003 on the truck bearing No. RJ-14-G-8726, he sustained injuries in discharge of his duties on 08.04.2003. Thereafter, he was admitted in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur where during the course of treatment he died on 14.04.2003. The claimants-respondents filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs. 3,38,888/- with interest and penalty on account of loss suffered for the death of workman-Gopiram.

4. The respondent No. 6-Mangal Chand, owner of the vehicle submitted his reply and admitted the fact of employment of the deceased with him and also admitted that the deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- and further stated that since the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. hence, the Insurance Company is liable to make the payment of compensation.

5. The appellant-Insurance Company submitted its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition and an objection was taken that no notice under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 1923’) was given and it was also denied that the deceased was working under the employment of the vehicle owner-Mangal Chand.

6. By the judgment and award dated 01.11.2006, the learned Commissioner allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,38,880/- with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants-respondents.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 01.11.2006 passed by the learned Commissioner, the appellant-Insurance Company preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 without framing any substantial question of law in the memo of this appeal.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company argued that the deceased was not working under the employment of the vehicle owner, hence, the deceased was not a workman and the claimants are not entitled to get any amount of compensation.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants argued that the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 is not maintainable as no substantial question of law has been framed. Hence, the instant appeal is liable to be rejected only on this ground.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. Bare perusal of the proviso attached to Section 30 of the Act of 1923 indicates that no appeal shall lie against any order passed by the learned Commissioner unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.

12. It is the settled principle of law that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision