JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the judgment dated 25.7.01 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensa¬tion, Ganjam, Berhampur, in W.C. Case No. 108 of 1998. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.7.2001 in the above noted case, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred the appeal before this Court. 2. The fact of the case in brief, is that deceased P. Bhaskara Rao was working as the driver in the car bearing regis¬tration No. AHQ 2608 which belonged to opposite party- respondent No. 2. While deceased P. Bhaskar Rao was driving the car on 31.10.98 from Berhampur to Titilagarh, he met with an accident with a police jeep coming from the opposite direction. As a result, he sustained severe injuries on his head, abdomen and other parts of the body and was removed to District Headquarters Hospital, Sonepur for treatment. On 1.11.98 said deceased P. Bhaskar Rao was removed to Military Hospital, Badmala and on 2.11.98 he was referred to M.K.C.G. Medical College Hospital, Berhampur. On 3.11.98 deceased P. Bhaskar Rao was admitted to the M.K.C.G. Medical College Hospital, Berhampur, and while under treatment on 5.11.98 said P. Bhaskar Rao succumbed to his in¬juries. The claimant-respondent No. 1, Smt. P. Kamala, wife of deceased P. Bhaskar Rao, filed a petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Ganjam, Berhampur, alleging that her late husband was working as driver under opposite party-respondent No. 2 and he was getting wages of Rs. 2100/- per month and he was aged about 43 years at the time of his death. Besides, her late husband was getting Rs. 20/- per day towards daily allowance. 3. In order to establish her case, the claimant-respondent No. 1 has examined herself as P.W.1 and proved the medical re¬ports as well as plain paper F.I.R. final form, injury reports, post-mortem report, zimanama and seizure list etc. The opposite party-respondent No. 2 filed written statement admitting the fact of accident. It has been stated that the driver had valid driving licence and the car was insured under the appellant-opposite party No. 2. However, he has not examined any witness nor proved any document. The appellant-opposite party No. 2 filed written statement denying the allegations made against it, but no witness has been examined nor any document has been proved from its side. 4. However, he has not examined any witness nor proved any document. The appellant-opposite party No. 2 filed written statement denying the allegations made against it, but no witness has been examined nor any document has been proved from its side. 4. Considering the evidence on record, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation came to the conclusion that the appel¬lant-opposite party No. 2 is liable to pay the Compensation and accordingly he directed to pay the Compensation of Rs. 1,78,490/- to respondent-petitioner within one month of the judgment, fail¬ing which the appellant shall pay 12% interest from the date of accident. 5. In assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Workmen’s Compensa¬tion Commissioner failed to take note of the discrepancy in evidence as regards the age of the deceased and other factors on the basis of which the question of compensation was determined. 6. There is little scope for this Court to interfere with the finding of the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner by reappraisal of evidence. In the absence of any substantial ques¬tion of law raised by the appellant the impugned order remains unassailable. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. Accord¬ingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.