IMPORTANT POINT
The appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and findings of fact by the Commissioner are final unless shown to be perverse.

JUDGMENT :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. The appellant/non-claimant No.2 United India Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred the instant misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (‘Act pf 1923’) challenging the validity of judgment and award dated 26.02.2016 passed by learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur in Claim Case No.WC/F-57/2011, whereby the Commissioner has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,65,005/- in favour of claimants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 13.07.2011 and imposed penalty of Rs.73,001/- on the non-claimant No.1/owner.

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 30 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 Insurance Company has suggested following questions of law for consideration by this Court:-

1. Whether the Insurance Premium taken for one Employee, could be extended to any so called ‘Karmkar’, as while insuring a Tractor, one Employee can always be its Driver only, because on Tractor there cannot be any other person allowed to sit anywhere including its Mudguard?

2. Whether the provisions of W.C. Act are at all applicable in the present case where the employment of deceased could not be substantiated by the claimants, and thus the Claim Petition was not even maintainable?

3. Whether the non-impleadment of the Insured, particularly when any transfer of ownership of the Vehicle was not brought on record before the appellant-Insurer, could at all make the Claim petition maintainable?

4. Whether in the case, in which the subject case is not at all covered in the Insurance Policy, any liability could at all be fixed on the appellant-Insurer?

5. Whether the learned Commissioner below has concluded correct within the provisions of W.C. Act 1923 while deciding and concluding that the appellant insurer only is liable to pay the entire compensation?

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 3/4 of the Act of 1923 for compensation on account of death of the bread earner of their family namely, Shri Mangilal Rawat (deceased herein) who died on 13.06.2011 while working as labourer under the employment of non-claimant No.1/respondent No.4 herein. In the claim petition, the claimants alleged that deceased Mangilal Rawat was working under the employment and direction of non-claimant No.1 on his tractor bearing registration number RJ-09-R-4789 for last