P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals have been filed by the insurer against a common decision of the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation-cum-Deputy labour Commissioner, Cuttack (in short, 'the Commissioner' ). ( 2 ) NARAYAN Swain is the deceased. He was the driver in respect of an autorickshaw belonging to present respondent no. 2. In course of duty, the vehicle met with an accident on 4. 2. 1995 ultimately causing the death of the driver. W. C. Case no. 164-J of 1995 was filed by the widow of the deceased claiming compensation, whereas W. C. Case No. 163-J of 1995 was filed by the widowed mother of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE owner in his written statement while admitting about the employment, accidental death of the deceased, disputed his liability and pleaded that the liability, if any, should be borne by the insurer. The insurer generally denied the allegation made in the two claim applications. ( 4 ) BOTH the matters were taken up together and the Commissioner found that the deceased was a workman and had died because of the injuries sustained in an accident arising out of and in course of employment. The Commissioner further found that Rs. 1,000 was the monthly salary and applying the multiplier as per age of the deceased, awarded a total sum of Rs. 84,716 out of which Rs. 56,477 was directed to be paid to the widow and rs. 28,239 was directed to be paid to the widowed mother. Misc. Appeal No. 494 of 1997 has been filed against the award in w. C. Case No. 164-J of 1995 and Misc. Appeal No. 495 of 1997 has been filed against the award in W. C. Case No. 163-J of 1995. ( 5 ) IN the present appeals, the learned counsel for the appellant challenged the finding of the Commissioner relating to employment and submitted that materials on record are not sufficient to uphold the finding that the deceased was a workman. However, on perusal of the record, such contention cannot be accepted. The finding is apparently a finding of fact not available to be challenged in an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. However, on perusal of the record, such contention cannot be accepted. The finding is apparently a finding of fact not available to be challenged in an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner has referred to the relevant evidence on record and came to the conclusion and there being no perversity in such finding, there is hardly any scope for interfering with the finding of the Commissioner. ( 6 ) THE counsel for the appellant challenges the quantum payable. It has been submitted that the evidence is not satisfactory relating to income and the Commissioner should not have assessed Rs. 1,000 to be the monthly income. This finding is again based on discussion of relevant evidence on record and since no substantial question of law is involved, the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The assessment relating to age is based on post-mortem report and as such compensation payable cannot be said to be illegal. The submission of the counsel for the appellant for reduction of the compensation amount cannot, therefore, be accepted. ( 7 ) THE counsel for the appellant further submitted that the xerox copy of the driving licence which had been produced indicates that the driver was not authorised to drive any transport vehicle, nor he was authorised to drive as a professional driver. Such a plea was raised before the Commissioner and negatived on the ground that specific plea had not been taken in the written statement. Though three persons were travelling in the autorickshaw at the time of the accident, in the absence of any plea or proof that they were travelling as passengers paying fare, it cannot be said that the autorickshaw was being used as a transport vehicle at the time of accident. In the absence of any specific plea, the commissioner has rightly negatived the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant. There cannot be any dispute that the autorickshaw is a light motor vehicle and as such licence authorising to drive light motor vehicle would also include an autorickshaw. Having regard to all these aspects, the contention raised before the commissioner at the time of hearing arguments and repeated in the present appeal cannot be accepted. ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in any of the appeals which are accordingly dismissed. Having regard to all these aspects, the contention raised before the commissioner at the time of hearing arguments and repeated in the present appeal cannot be accepted. ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in any of the appeals which are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ( 9 ) IT appears that the amount has been deposited. The awarded amount along with accrued interest shall be disbursed to respective claimant-respondent No. 1 by 21. 12. 1999. Appeals dismissed.