JUDGMENT : A.M. Sapre , J.:- Thisis an appeal filed by Insurance Company (NA-2) under Section 30 of Workmen'sCompensation Act (for short called 'The Act') against an order dated 25.11.2005passed by Commissioner for Workmen Compensation in Claim Case No. 122/04. 2.Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention in shortinfra. 3.The R-1 is the applicant claimant whereas appellant is the NA-1 and R-2 is theNA-2 in the claim petition before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation out ofwhich this appeal arises. 4.It is the case of R-1 i.e. applicant in his claim petition that on 08. 10.04,he i.e. R-1/applicant was working as labourer onThresher Machine fitted in tractor bearing No. MP-09/M-7919 for cutting Soyabean when his both hands were cut i.e. chopped of dueto defect suddenly developed in machine. It was averred that R-1 (claimant) wasin the employment of R-2 (NA-2) as labourer at thetime of accident on a monthly salary of Rs . 3,000/-.It is this incident, which gave rise to filing of claim petition by R-1 underSection 3 read with Section 10/20 of Workmen's Compensation Act against R-2(NA-2) and appellant herein before Commissioner, Workmen Compensation claimingcompensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. It wasalleged that accident occurred during the course of employment and arising outof employment resulting in cutting of both the hands from his elbows. It wasalleged that the tractor/thresher was insured with the appellant (NA-2) duringthe relevant period and hence, both NA-1 i.e. employer of claimant andInsurance Company (appellant) i.e. insurer of tractor/thresher are jointly andseverally liable to suffer the liability arising out of the accident inquestion. It was alleged that due to loss of both hands, the claimant aged 21years has become totally dependent on others for his whole life and hence,entitled to claim compensation for the 100% loss of his hands us per scheduleto Act, it being in the nature of permanent disability defined under the Act. 5.The NA-1 (R-2) i.e. employer of claimant admitted all the averments made inclaim petition whereas appellant (NA-2) denied the case of claimant. Accordingthe appellant, they are not liable to pay any compensation because theinsurance policy issued does not cover the risk of this nature. Parties adducedevidence. By impugned order, the Commissioner allowed the claim petition ofclaimant and awarded a sum of Rs . 4 ,00,878 /-to claimant for the injuries sustained by him in accident. Accordingthe appellant, they are not liable to pay any compensation because theinsurance policy issued does not cover the risk of this nature. Parties adducedevidence. By impugned order, the Commissioner allowed the claim petition ofclaimant and awarded a sum of Rs . 4 ,00,878 /-to claimant for the injuries sustained by him in accident. It was held thatclaimant was in the employment of NA-1 (R-2) at the time of accident. It wasalso held that claimant lost his both hands from elbow. It was held thatInsurance Company is liable to indemnify the insurer because the policy inquestion issued by Insurance Company covers the risk of such injuries sufferedby claimant in accident. In the light of these findings, the Commissionerpassed an order awarding a total sum of Rs . 4 ,00.878 /- jointly and severally against the insurer andinsured for the injuries sustained by the claimant i.e. loss of both hands fromelbow. It is against this order, the company has filedthis appeal. 6.Learned counsel for the appellants (Insurance Company) while assailing theorder impugned in this appeal contended that Commissioner erred in holdingInsurance Company liable to suffer the liability. According to him, the policyin question i.e. the one issued for tractor and other issued for thresher doesnot cover the risk of any employee of the insured. It was his submission thatthere is variance in the statement made in FIR and what is stated in the claimpetition so far as the accident and its nature is concerned. Learned counselurged that the manner in which the accident occurred does not in any mannerhold the company liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident.Learned counsel pointed out that coverage of policy in relation to thresher didnot cover the risk of employee whereas it only covers the risk of machine.Learned counsel urged that so far as policy of tractor is concerned, the sametoo would not cover the risk because the accident did not arise out of use oftractor nor it covered the risk of any employee working with the insured. Inreply, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (claimant) supported the impugnedorder. 7.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the recordof the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal. 8.In our opinion, the view taken by Commissioner is proper calling nointerference in our appellate jurisdiction, which is confined to examine onlysubstantial question of law akin to Section 100 of C.P. Code. 7.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the recordof the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal. 8.In our opinion, the view taken by Commissioner is proper calling nointerference in our appellate jurisdiction, which is confined to examine onlysubstantial question of law akin to Section 100 of C.P. Code. 9.In our opinion, so far as, factual findings recorded by Commissioner areconcerned, they are binding on us in this appeal. In other words, all thefactual findings recorded by the Commissioner cannot be disturbed in thisappeal because as observed supra, scope of appeal filed under Section 30 isextremely limited. It is confined to examination of only substantial questionof law arising out of the case. 10.As taken note of supra, it is held on facts by the Commissioner that claimantwas in the employment of NA-1 (R-2) on the date of accident. It was also heldthat accident occurred during the course of employment and arising out ofemployment. It was also held that both tractor and thresher were involved inoperation when accident occurred. It is also held that both tractor andthresher were insured with the appellant. In our view, these factual findingsare binding on us in an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Act. 11.In the light of these factual findings, it is not possible to accept thecontention of learned counsel for the appellant when he contended that accidentdid not occur while tractor was not in operation or that the information givenin FIR does not tally with the statement made in claim petition or in evidenceor that it was improved version in FIR etc. In our opinion, these are allquestions of facts and fall in the realm of appreciation of evidence. Theycannot be examined in this appeal nor we can reopenany factual controversy in this appeal at the instance of Insurance Company forreversal of these factual findings, we, accordingly, uphold the same. 12.We are also not impressed by the submission of learned counsel for theappellant when he contended that the risk of an employee i.e. claimant workingfor insured is not covered in this case by the policies issued by the InsuranceCompany for tractor/thresher. In the first place, if the accident occurredwhile the tractor is in operation as held by Commissioner then the risk ofinsured is covered if any person whether third party or his employee sufferedany injury with the vehicle. In the first place, if the accident occurredwhile the tractor is in operation as held by Commissioner then the risk ofinsured is covered if any person whether third party or his employee sufferedany injury with the vehicle. In either case, in the light of factual findingsrecorded by the Commissioner, we cannot probably hold that Insurance Companyshould be exonerated. The submission of learned counsel for the appellantthough looked attractive at the first sight, which is based on clauses of policies cannot be accepted in the light of findingsrecorded by the Commissioner. 13.So far as quantum is concerned, no case of interference is made out. In ourview, it is a genuine and bonafide case where theclaimant a young person has lost his both hands. It is really a painful eventto take note of. The life of a claimant has become practically a liability notonly on himself but also on others because after accident, he cannot doanything of his own having lost both hands. We may only say that destiny wascruel to him. 14.In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Nocost.