JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant-insurance-company and perused the award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the record of the learned Commissioner. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance-company has contended that in the instant case it has not proved that the death of the employee occurred in an accident while working as a Workman on the truck of the respondent No. 6-Bachchu Singh Kasana. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance-company has sought to contend that in fact the death of the workman occurred while he was travelling, along with his father and was run over by a passing truck. 4. So far as the above contention is concerned, in the claim petition in Para No. 2 there was a specific averment that the deceased Amar Singh @ Pappu died while he was employed with the employer on his truck bearing No. RJ-02-G-3887 and was travelling in the same and was electrocuted while travelling in the said truck during the course of his employment and he fell down from the truck and as a result thereof he sustained injuries and ultimately he died as a result of the injuries. 5. In the written-statement filed by the appellant insurance-company this fact was not disputed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance-company sought to contend that in the amended written-statement, which was filed by the appellant insurance-company the plea with regard to the death not having occurred in the course of employment as a result of the accident was raised. 7. I have perused the record and I find that vide order dated 29.09.2007 the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. by the appellant insurance-company was rejected by the learned Tribunal as it was filed at a late stage. 8. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the plea sought to be raised on the basis of the amended written-statement, which has been disallowed cannot be looked into. 9. 8. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the plea sought to be raised on the basis of the amended written-statement, which has been disallowed cannot be looked into. 9. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion based upon the material placed on record, including the final report given by the Police, wherein the Police has found on the basis of the investigation that the deceased died as a result of being electrocuted while he was travelling on the truck bearing No. RJ-02-G-3887 and as a result of having come into contact with the over head electric lines he fell down and received injuries in his head etc., on account of which he died. The 'panchahnama', which was prepared on 26.01.2004 also shows that the deceased had died as a result of electrocution. 10. In the instant case, the Police had as per the case of the claimant declined to record the F.I.R. on 26.01.2004 and therefore, the father of the deceased had to subsequently file the complaint before the learned Magistrate, which was sent for the investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on which the final report, Exhibit-1 was given by the Police on 31.03.2004 being F.R. No. 90/2004 as such there is no post-mortem report of the deceased. 11. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the aforesaid contentions of the appellant cannot be accepted. 12. Moreover, the aforesaid finding being a question of fact cannot be allowed to be raised in this appeal, as an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 only lies on a substantial question of law. 13. In the facts and circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in this miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 14. The miscellaneous appeal as well as the stay application are accordingly dismissed summarily.Appeal dismissed. *******