The judgment emphasizes the limited jurisdiction of the High Court to substantial questions of law only and upholds the findings of the learned Commissioner based on sound appreciation of evidence.

ORDER

1. A challenge in the instant misc. appeal has been made to the impugned judgment and award dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Sikar, Rajasthan (for short 'the learned Commissioner') in WCC/NF/11/2013 by which the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent has been allowed and the Insurance company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,04,109/-to the claimant-respondent with interest.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent filed a claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sikar by saying that he was working as a helper for agriculture purpose on chaff cutter machine attached with a tractor bearing No.RJ-23-RB-1408 which belong to the owner/respondent No.2. It was also mentioned in the claim petition that the claimant was working under the employment of respondent No.2 and during the course of that employment he sustained injury and his hand was imputed.

3. The appellant-Insurance Company submitted its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition and disputed the relationship of employee and employer with the insured.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned Commissioner allowed the claim petition by directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.4,04,109/- with interest to the claimant-respondent.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, this appeal has been submitted by the insurance company. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the injured was working in his own field, hence, there was no relationship of employee and employer between the injured and the owner of the vehicle.

6. Learned counsel further submits that thresher is not a part of tractor under the Motor Vehicles Act and no premium was taken for the thresher. Hence, the insurance-company is not liable to make any amount of compensation to the injured claimant.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent opposed the arguments raised gby the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that it is the settled position of law that thresher is a part of tractor and no separate registration and no separate premium is required to be paid under the Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose of insuranace as the vehicle in question was fully insured.

8. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in "Smt. Babi & Ors. Vs. Laxman & Ors." in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.91/2001 decided on 27.04.2013 and "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hanuman Singh & Anr." in Civil Misc. Appeal No.5500/2009 decided on 25.11.2019 wherein it has been held that the thresher is attached to the tractor. Hence, the same falls under the purview of motor vehicles and no separate insurance and no separate premium is required to be paid for that purpose.

9. Lastly, learned counsel argued that there is relationship of employee and employer between the injured and the owner of the vehicle and finding of fact has already been recorded by the learned Commissioner while passing the award.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that the appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923, is maintainable only on the basis of substantial question of law and the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant are purely based on the finding of fact which cannot be reagitated by way of filing this appeal.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings given by the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of evidence and the same is not liable to be disturbed by this Court.

13. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Commissioner is the last authority on facts as it has been held by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in the case of "Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager And Anr." reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45. It has been held in Para No. 8 & 10 as under:

"8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeal to the Hig