JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February 12, 1981 of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Ratlam, whereby the respondent has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 11314.22 Ps(Rs. 131472?). for the loss of right index finger. 2. The brief history of the case is that the respondent-workman filed an application before the Commissioner with the allegation that he was workman in the Industry of NA/appellant. He was taking out some cotton from the Machine and sustained injuries on the right thumb and right index finger and was treated in the hospital. He has lost his right index finger. He was earning Rs. 5/- per day. The NA (appellant here) has denied the contention of the workman and submitted that he was never in his employment He entered the machine room alongwith one Bihari without the permission of the Management and sustained injuries due to his own negligence. After hearing the parlies and taking the evidence the Commissioner has found that the workman was in the employment of NA/appellant and sustained injuries while working as such. The applicant-workman had served notice to the NA/ appellant. It has further been held that he was entitled for half wages from May 31, 1978 to July 9, 1988 and further he is entitled for Rs. 11314.72 (11314.22?) as compensation. The Commissioner has awarded the compensation as referred above. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the approach of Commissioner was not proper and he has failed to consider the material piece of evidence and has further failed to consider documentary evidence proviso to Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act reads as follows: "Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless 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." 4. Thus, it has to be seen in the case as to whether there is any substantial question of law? Before examining the case from the angle it would be proper to mention it here that even if this Court can come to a different conclusion on close scrutiny and evaluation of evidence the finding of fact shall not be disturbed if it is supportable otherwise. Before examining the case from the angle it would be proper to mention it here that even if this Court can come to a different conclusion on close scrutiny and evaluation of evidence the finding of fact shall not be disturbed if it is supportable otherwise. The respondent-workman has examined PW 1 Gopal Singh, PW 2 Salyanarain, PW 3 Mohan Singh, himself as PW4, Indrajeet Singh Chaudhari, C.M.O. District Ratlam, and Kishorilal in support of his contention while NA/appellant hasexamihed Biharilal and Manohar Singh Nahar in support of his contention. The applicant has stated that he was in the employment of NA/appellant. Gopal Singh, Satyanarain and Mohan Singh all the three have stated that applicant-respondent was working in the factory owned by appellant here. PW 3 Mohan Singh is the father of applicant-respondent, but Gopal Singh appears to be an independent witness. PW 6 Kishorilal has also corroborated the assertions of applicant-respondent and stated that he immediately went to the factory concerned, after the incident and found him in injured position. Learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to show some contradictions, as per applicant Surendra he was got employed through Bihari Lal DW1, while as per father of the applicant he got him employed in the factory. This is a minor contradiction and this will not be sufficient to reject the whole of the evidence of all these witnesses. 5. DW 1 Bihari Lal has tried to state that applicant was a casual visitor and was not a regular employee, but on the date of his evidence it appears he was in the employment of the ap-pellant-NA and to that extent he appears to be an interested witness. PW 2 has tried to prove that a register allegedly regularly maintained showing the attendance of the workers and stated that the applicant was not in his employment. But, that register is a document prepared and kept by the NA. The applicant is not bound by the entries therein. It appears the applicant was a minor and therefore it was not in accordance with law and Rules to have employed him and probably for that reason his name does not appear in the register maintained by the NA. But, that register is a document prepared and kept by the NA. The applicant is not bound by the entries therein. It appears the applicant was a minor and therefore it was not in accordance with law and Rules to have employed him and probably for that reason his name does not appear in the register maintained by the NA. Thus, the assertions of applicant that he was in the employment of NA-appellant on the date of accident appears to be correct This finding of the Commissioner is based on appreciation of the evidence. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate that any relevant evidence has not been considered or that the findings is in any way perverse. P.W. 6 Dr. Indrajeet Singh has stated about the injuries sustained by the applicant. Thus applicant stands corroborated from the medical evidence as well. The compensation awarded appears to be on the lower side, but neither there is any cross objection nor anybody appeared to argue the case on behalf of respondent applicant and therefore, this Court refrains from passing any order regarding that. There does not appear any substance in the appeal. Appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. Appellant shall bear his own cost and shall pay the cost of the respondent Counsels' fee Rs. 100/-.