JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal in terms of Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter ‘the Act”) is directed against the award dated 29.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu) (hereinafter ‘the Commissioner’) in file No.Inj-56/ECAct/11 titled Methan Singh v. M/s Kash Hind Roller Flour Mill, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,89,173/- as compensation and Rs.40,890/- as interest awarded under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act.

2. The appeal by the appellant-employee is primarily for enhancement of the award amount and is filed on the following substantial questions of law:-

“A. Whether the court below has erred in law by not holding respondent liable for the medical expenses like cost of medicines, cost of artificial limb, cost of permanent attendant, penalty ad further interest on the awarded amount till realization especially when the respondent, in law, is liable to said amount over and above the award passed by the court below?

B. Whether the findings of the court below are prima facie perverse based on surmises and conjectures and there is error apparent on the face of record due to non-appreciation of evidence especially when the doctor in his deposition has prescribed for artificial limb, personal attendant and medical expenses etc?

C. Whether the court below has erred in not awarding penalty and further interest till actual realization of awarded amount for the default of the respondent ?”

3. Mr. Amrit Sarin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submits that the Commissioner has committed grave error of law and facts by denying the medical expenses incurred by the appellant. He further submits that the interest, which is payable under the Act has not been fully awarded and the amount awarded on account of interest is too meager.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find no merit in this appeal. The questions of law proposed by the appellant are mixed questions of fact and law and, therefore, cannot be decided in the absence of supporting evidence. I have carefully gone through the award and find that there is no evidence led by the appellant to prove the expenses allegedly incurred by the appellant on his treatment. The Commissioner having regard to the 100% disability of the appellant, his age and monthly wages, has awarded a sum of Rs.6,89,173/- as compensation. The Commissioner has also invoked Section 4 A(3)(a) of the Act to award interest of Rs.40,890/-. It is also noteworthy that the accident occurred on 01.09.2011 and the claim petition was filed on 08.10.2011. The Commissioner decided the claim petition on 29.02.2012 i.e. within four months and accordingly, awarded interest.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the decision of the Commissioner in awarding the interest.

6. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the questions proposed by the appellant are mixed questions of fact and law and, therefore, cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be termed as substantial questions of law sine qua non for entertaining the appeal under Section 30 of the Act. It is also reported by the learned counsel for the parties that the respondent has satisfied the award and there is, thus, no outstanding against the respondent.

7. Accordingly, this appeal is found not maintainable and the same is, therefore, dismissed.