JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 13.06.2013 passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sawaimadhopur (for short ‘the learned Commissioner’) in Claim Case No.E.C.A. No.21/2012, titled as “Mandroop Vs. Shankar lal & Anr.”, whereby the learned Commissioner while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.4,42,740/-along with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of incident as compensation in favour of the claimant-Mandroop. The learned Commissioner has also imposed fine of Rs.2,00,000/- upon the non-claimant No.1-Shankar Lal.

2. CMA No.2797/2013 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, whereas CMA No.3748/2013 has been filed by the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the insurance company’) challenging the judgment & award dated 13.06.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner on the various grounds.

3. CMA No.2797/2013-Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the learned Commissioner wrongly deducted 50% of the deceased’s income, whereas the deceased’s income was Rs.4,000/-per month at the relevant point of time. So, the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner be modified accordingly.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha reported in 2019 ACJ 29 and Dr. Harish Kumar vs. Dr. S.C. Gairola & ors. reported in 2018 SCC Online Utt 1030 and Bhikha Ram vs. Sunil Kumar & ors. reported in 2022 (2) CCR 784 (Raj.).

5. CMA No.3748/2013-learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the claimant failed to submit any evidence that the deceased was employee of the respondent No.1-Shankar Lal. Learned counsel for the insurance company further submits that the learned Commissioner wrongly awarded the claim amount in favour of the claimant. Learned counsel for the insurance company also submits that the appeal filed by the claimant is on findings of the fact. So, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. So, the appeal filed by the claimant be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the insurance company 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.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2013 including the documents available on the record.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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