JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 30.08.2005 passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sikar (for short ‘the learned Commissioner’) in Claim Case No.W.C.A.F./15/2004 & W.C.A.F./18/2004, titled as “Parmeshwari & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Arif & Anr.”, whereby the learned Commissioner while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.3,76,740/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of knowledge i.e. 11.05.2004 as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants (for short ‘the claimants’). The Commissioner has also awarded Rs.2500/- as funeral expenses.

2. CMA No.3289/2005-Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the learned Commissioner wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/-per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that claimant No.1 stated on oath that her husband was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month by driving. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that learned Commissioner has not awarded a single penny in the head of mental agony, loss of consortium etc. So, the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner be modified accordingly.

3. CMA No.2992/2005-learned counsel for the claimant-Chuki Devi submits that learned Commissioner wrongly disallowed the claim petition of the claimant. Learned counsel for the claimant-Chuki Devi also submits that claimant was dependent on deceased. So, claimant is entitled to get compensation. So, the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner be modified and claimant be also awarded the amount compensation on the death of Kurda Ram.

4. At the outset, counsel for the respondents submits that no substantial question of law is involved in these appeals. The appeals have 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. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2005 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.

8. 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 order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b),unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three