The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and it cannot re-evaluate factual findings.

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company (for short 'the Insurance Company') under section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act of 1923) against the judgment dated 30.11.2012 passed by learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sikar in claim case No. WCC(F)47/2010 titled as Smt. Mooli & Anr. v. Lalit Kumar & Ors., whereby the respondent No. 3-Owner and appellant (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 therein) have been directed to pay Rs. 4, 48, 000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum thereon from 24.06.2010, till deposition of the amount with the Commissioner. They have also been directed to deposit Rs. 2500/- with the Commissioner towards funeral expenses for payment thereof to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2-claimants, within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the interest would be payable @ 12% per annum in place of 9% per annum.

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 offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the Insurance company also submits that there was no evidence to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 6, 000/- per month and also getting Rs. 100/- per day as allowance. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that only tractor was insured with the Insurance Company and the tractor had registered sitting capacity of one person i.e. driver. Premium was also charged for legal liability of only one person i.e. driver, therefore, liability of Khallasi was not covered in the Insurance Policy. So, appeal be allowed and judgment dated 30.11.2012 passed by learned Commissioner 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. v. The Divisional Manager And Anr. reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 and North East Karnatka Transport Corporation v. 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 lump-sum 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