JUDGMENT :

1. This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 30 of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act of 1923) against the judgment dated 17.10.2012 passed by Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, Bundi in claim case no. W.C.A./F/73/2011 titled as Dwarika Bai & Anr. Vs. Madhusudan Sharma & Anr., whereby an award of Rs.6,50,730/-with interest of Rs.1,03,033/-has been passed in favour of the claimants-respondents and against the appellant and it has also directed that in case the amount is not paid within 30 days, then the interest @ 12% per annum shall be payable additionally.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Commissioner wrongly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submits that there is no evidence that alleged accident took place. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence that the deceased was employed as a Khalasi by the owner of the insured vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the claimants as well as owner failed to prove the income of the deceased. So, appeal be allowed and judgment 17.10.2012 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Bundi be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments: (1) Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing vs. Bai Valu Raja and ors. reported in AIR 1958 SC 881 and (2) Shankuntala Chandrakant Shreshti vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & anr. reported in 2007 (1) TAC 1 (SC).

4. At the outset, counsel for the respondents submits that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal has been submitted on the findings of facts. In support of his contentions, counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager And Anr. reported in 2017(1) SCC 45 and North East Karnatka Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in 2019(11) SCC 514.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants has also relied upon the following judgments: (1) North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha reported in 2019 ACJ 29; (2) Dr. Harish Kumar vs. Dr. S.C. Gairola & ors. reported in 2018 SCC Online Utt 1030 and (3) Bhikha Ram vs. Sunil Kumar & ors. reported in 2022 (2) CCR 784 (Raj.). Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2012 including the documents available on the record.

6. 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.

7. In the opinion of this Court also, the learned Commissioner is the last authority on facts as it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme 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 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 lumpsum 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 order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;

(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 12;or

(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:

Provided that no appeal shall lie against any