The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case, as provided under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

JUDGMENT :

This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) u/s 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act of 1923) against the judgment dated 23.01.2015 passed by learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sikar in claim case No. WCC/F/54/2009 titled as Kurda Ram & Anr. Vs. Amar Singh Shekhawat & Ors., whereby an amount of Rs.4,39,900/- with interest @ 12% from the date of the accident has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants-respondents (for short ‘the claimants’) and against the Insurance Company and Rs.5,000/- has also been awarded as funeral expenses.

2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that learned Commissioner wrongly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and owner of the vehicle. As per the version of the claimants, the deceased was employed with respondent No.4-Ram Niwas, who was neither the insured nor the registered owner of the vehicle. He further submits that deceased who was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time was having the driving licence to drive light motor vehicles. So, appeal be allowed and judgment dated 23.01.2015 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sikar be set aside.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the claimants 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 claimants 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.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment including the documents available on the record. 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.

5. 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. (supra):

"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 hundred rupees (Emphasis supplied)

10. Under the scheme of the Act, the workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial question of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and h