The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of appeal to substantial questions of law under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.

JUDGMENT

anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Instant appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation act, 1923 (hereinafter referred as 'the act of 1923') has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 13.08.2009 passed by the Court of Employees Compensation Commissioner act, 1923, ajmer, District ajmer (for short 'the learned Commissioner') in claim case No. WCa/F/04/2007, whereby an award of Rs. 5,27,436/- has been passed in favour of the claimants-respondents.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the claimants-respondents filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner under Section 22 of the act of 1923 against the appellant - Insurance Company and driver owner of the vehicle as the claimants suffered loss due to the death of Shyoram Jat who died on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident occurred on 03.12.2006.

3. The case of the claimants-respondents was that the deceased was a driver of tractor bearing No. RJ-01-R-7753 and at the time of accident, he was working under the employment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. It was also pleaded in the claim petition that at the time of accident the age of the deceased was 26 years and he was getting a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month.

4. The owner of the tractor submitted reply to the claim petition and admitted the averments of the claim, while the appellant-Insurance Company denied the averments of the claim petition and stated that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle.

5. after hearing both the sides, the learned Commissioner allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants and the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,27,436/- to the claimants-respondents.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the finding given by the learned Commissioner on all the issues is perverse as there was no relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle. Counsel further argued that the claimants have failed to establish that the deceased was working on the vehicle of the owner at the time of accident.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant.

9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the claimants-respondents and perused the record of the case.

10. The arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant regarding the perverse finding given by the learned Commissioner on the issues has no force in view of the fact that the learned Commissioner after considering the evidence available on the record has recorded the finding of fact.

11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings given by the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of evidence and the same are not liable to be disturbed by this Court unless and until there is some substantial question of law is involved.

12. Bare perusal of the memo of appeal and after hearing the arguments of both sides, this Court finds that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

13. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager and anr." reported in 2017(1) SCC 45 has held in Para 8 and 10 as under:-

'8. Section 30 of the act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows:

30. appeals.-(1) an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;

[(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty Under Section 4a;]

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;

(c) an