IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is confined to substantial questions of law, and it cannot re-evaluate factual findings made by the Commissioner.

JUDGMENT :

(Nupur Bhati, J.) :

1. The appellants/claimants have preferred the instant misc. appeal under Section 30 (A) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (‘Act pf 1923’) for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Workman Compensation Commissioner, Bhilwara vide its judgment and award dated 24.08.2015 passed in Claim Case No.ECA/F-110/2012, whereby the Commissioner has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,19,840/-in favour of claimants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 05.11.2010 and imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the non-claimant No.1.

2. Before considering the appeal on merits, it is necessary to look into the scope of interference by the High Court in the appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923. It is no more res integra that such appeal to the High Court, against the order of the Commissioner, lie only against the specific orders set out in Clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act of 1923 with a further rider contained in Proviso-I of Section that the appeal must involve substantial question(s) of law. The position of law is well settled that the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 to the High Court, against the order of Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to the first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The regular civil first appeal under Section 96 of CPC can be heard both on facts and law whereas the scope of appellate court to decide the appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 is confined only to examine the substantial question(s) of law arising in the case. It is therefore, clear that the High Court is first required to find out as to whether the present appeal involves any substantial question(s) of law or not? If the substantial question(s) of law arises, the appeal may be admitted for final hearing on merits else the same is liable to be dismissed with reasons that it does not involve any substantial question(s) of law.

3. Now coming to the appeal at hand, the appellants/claimants have suggested following questions of law for consideration by this Court:-

1. Whether the respondent No.1 cannot be fastened with liability to the tune of 50% of the compensation awarded for not paying even a single penny towards compensation even after lapse of period of almost five years?

2. Whether the learned court below ought not to have taken Rs.8000/-per month as salary of the deceased as provided to be minimum wages of a driver w.e.f. June, 2010 in Workmen Compensation Act?

3. Whether the rate of interest cannot be increased/enhanced on the compensation considering the fact of demise of a man of just 29 years of age as well as lapse of period for deciding the claim of the claimants.?

4. Whether the learned court below would not have awarded compensation towards loss of love and affection and mental agony suffered by the appellants?

4. In order to examine as to whether the aforesaid questions are essentially questions of fact or can be considered as substantial question(s) of law, it is necessary to consider the facts of case in brief and the findings recorded by the Commissioner.

5. This is a case where claimants filed claim petition under Section 10 read with Section 22 of the Act of 1923 for compensation on account of death of the bread earner of their family namely, Shri Kailash Regar (deceased herein) who died on 05.10.2010 while working with his employer, non-claimant No.1/respondent No.1 herein. In the claim petition, the claimants alleged that that deceased Sh. Kailash Regar was employed as a driver on the tractor bearing registration number RJ-06-1R-0863 in the employment of non-claimant No.1. On 05.10.2010 in the evening at 04:30 – 05:00 pm, when the deceased was plying the said tractor, its right side tyre got blast, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and during treatment, he expired. At the time of accident, the deceased was 29 years of age and he was earning