JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act of 1923') against the judgment and award dt.5.10.2018 passed by Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Sikar in claim case No. W.C.C./F-93/2012 whereby an amount of Rs.7,30,480/- has been awarded in favour of the respondent-claimant (for short' the claimant') against non-claimant-respondent No. 1 and 2 alongwith interest 12% per annum from the date of alleged incident.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner wrongly awarded the compensation. He also submits that the Commissioner miserably failed to consider that no rojnamcha, PMR or any other public document was produced by the claimants to prove the involvement of the alleged vehicle in the accident. He also submits that claimants falsely implicated the alleged vehicle to get the amount of compensation. He further submits that there is no evidence to establish the relationship of the employer and employee between the deceased and the insured. He also submits that claimants failed to prove that deceased was engaged as a driver of the insured vehicle. He further submits that appellant had adduced evidence of (NAW-1- Gautam) who exhibited the record (Ex.NA-1) which clearly shows that no accident took place on the alleged date. Deceased died due to heart attack for getting the amount, a concocted story was prepared by claimants. So, award of the Commissioner be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer , Nellore Thermal Station and anr. reported in 2006 ACJ 2165 and Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and anr. in appeal (civil) No. 4778/2006 decided on 10.11.2006.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the Commissioner had perused the documents available on record and finding given by the Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of evidence and the same is not liable to be disturbed by this court.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Golla Rajanna Etc. v. The Divisional Manager and anr. reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 wherein Para No. 8 and 10 it was held that:

“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 th