Limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, allows appeals only on substantial questions of law.

JUDGMENT :

1. 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 13.01.2015 passed by learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sikar (for short ‘learned Commissioner’) in claim case No.WCCF/NF/27/2007 titled as Hardeva Ram Vs. Harphool Singh & Anr., whereby an amount of Rs.2,36,472/- with interest @ 12% has been awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1 (for short ‘the claimant’) with effect from the date of accident i.e. 01.02.2007.

2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Commissioner has wrongly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that no FIR was lodged regarding accident dated 01.02.2007 for two months. Rather, the claimant submitted an application after a lapse of more than 2 months, on which no investigation was conducted by the police. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that claimant had not submitted any evidence regarding income. Claimant was not a regular labourer and works as per the daily requirement in open market. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that as per permanent disability certificate, only 17% permanent disability was caused but learned Commissioner wrongly considered it as 50% while considering the permanent disability. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that at that time, prevailing minimum wages was 81/- per day but learned Commissioner wrongly considered the income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month. So, appeal be allowed and judgment dated 13.01.2015 passed by learned Commissioner be set aside.

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

5. 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.

6. 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