The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between questions of fact and substantial questions of law in appeals under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. The court emphasized the limited scope of interference by the High Court in the findings of the Commissioner and the requirement for substantial question(s) of law to be involved in the appeal.

JUDGMENT

Sudesh Bansal, J. - Reportable

1. Instant miscellaneous appeal has been filed by Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation act, 1923, assailing the award dated 12.09.2017 passed by the Court of Commissioner, the Employee's Compensation act, 1923 Jaipur District-II, Jaipur awarding compensation of Rs.3,44,855/- to claimants with interest @12% per annum and along with the order to make payment of the medical expenses also.

2. Before considering the appeal on merits, it is necessary to look into the scope of interference by the High Court in the appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation act, 1923 (for short, 'the act of 1923'). It is no more res integra that such appeal to the High Court, against the order of the Commissioner, lie only against the specific orders set out in Clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the act of 1923 with a further rider contained in Proviso-I of Section that the appeal must involve substantial question(s) of law. The position of law is well settled that the appeal provided under Section 30 of the act of 1923 to the High Court, against the order of Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to the first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The regular civil first appeal under Section 96 of CPC can be heard both on facts and law whereas the scope of appellate court to decide the appeal under Section 30 of the act of 1923 is confined only to examine the substantial question(s) of law arising in the case. It is therefore, clear that the High Court is first required to find out as to whether the present appeal involves any substantial question(s) of law or not? If the substantial question(s) of law arises, the appeal may be admitted for final hearing on merits else the same is liable to be dismissed with reasons that it does not involve any substantial question(s) of law.

3. Now coming to the appeal at hand, the Insurance Company has suggested following questions of law for consideration by this Court:-

'(a) Whether a workman after his duty hours leaves his work place for his house, will he still be treated to be in the course of employment?

(b) Whether a claim based on fabricated facts, as an afterthought merely with an intention to get a false claim from Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs as justice and fraud cannot be allowed to walk together with hand in hand?

(c) Whether the ECC can entertain the claim when no court fee has been paid by the claimants at the time of filing of the claim in contravention of the provisions of the Court Fee act?'

4. In order to examine as to whether the aforesaid questions are essentially questions of fact or can be considered as substantial question(s) of law, it is necessary to consider the facts of case in brief and the findings recorded by the Commissioner.

5. This is a case where claimants filed claim petition under Section 3 read with Section 22 of the act of 1923 for compensation on account of death of the bread earner of their family namely, Shri Sita Ram (deceased herein). It was alleged that Shri Sita Ram was employed as a 'Helper' on drilling machine of truck No.RJ-14-P-055 of which non-claimant No.1-arjun Lal is the owner and the deceased was discharging his duties under his employment. It was averred that on 27.03.2011 the deceased was engaged in drilling work on the said truck and he met with an accident during the course of his employment and sustained serious injuries including head injury. Later on he died on 23.04.2011 due to injuries received in the accident arising out of and in the course of employment. It was alleged that the truck of non-claimant No.1 is insured with the Insurance Company (non-claimant No.2) therefore, it was prayed that non-claimant Nos.1 & 2 (owner/insured and Insurance Company) both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants under the act of 1923.

6. Non-claimant No.1 the insured has filed reply to clai