JUDGMENT Tej Shanker, J. 1. This appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, has been preferred by appellant Amrit Lal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant suffered an injury and the Doctor had opined that the disability was 45%. The learned Counsel contended that the appellant got himself examined and also by Dr. D.K. Gupta, who had given certificate of disability. Dr. Gupta has stated that the disability is 45% and he did not agree with the report of the Board that the disability was 10%. The learned Counsel contended that in view of specific statement of Dr. Gupta the appellant ought to have been awarded disability benefit at 45%. It is also contended that there is no evidence in rebuttal and as such it amounts to substantial question of law. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that there is a report of the Medical Board to the effect that disability was 10% and he also contended that the disability was not a scheduled disability. There is no substantial question of law. 2. I have considered the contentions. The main thrust of the appeal is the quantum awarded by the learned Court in view of the statement of Dr. Gupta. Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act provides that an appeal lies to this Court if the question involved is a substantial question of law. The question as to whether adequate compensation was awarded or not can, in no way, be said to be a substantial question of law, rather it is a question of fact. The contention of the appellant is that except the statement of the appellant as well as the statement of Dr. Gupta, there is no evidence to the contrary the Court should have awarded disability benefit as pointed out by Dr. Gupta. I do not think that it can be termed as substantial question of law. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.