JUDGMENT:- By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation on 13.09.1990 granting compensation to the tune of Rs.53,760/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the realization of the amount. 2. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 are the original claimants. They had filed an application before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was the case of the claimants that while Azizshah was working as a cleaner/conductor on the vehicle of the respondent no.5, the truck in which he was travelling turned turtle and Azizshah died in the accident. It was the case of the claimants that Azizshah was getting an amount of Rs. 400/ - towards his wages and Rs. 10/- per day as running Bhatta. The respondents therefore, sought compensation to the tune of Rs.62, 770/ - besides the amount of Rs.25,000/- towards No Fault Liability with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of its realization. 3. The respondent no.5, the owner of the truck admitted that Azizshah was working as a cleaner on the truck of the respondent no.5 and was earning wages of Rs. 400/- per month. Though it was admitted that Azizshah was earning Rs.I0/- per day towards bhatta, according to the respondent no.5, the truck was not plied on all 30 days of the month and since it was plied on about 20 days, Azizshah was getting a bhatta of approximately of Rs.200/- per month. 4. The insurance company also denied the claim of the claimants and further denied that Azizshah was earning an amount of Rs. 400/- per month towards wages and Rs.300/ - towards bhatta. 5. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Commissioner held that the claimants succeeded in proving that Azizshah died in an accident which arose out of and in the course of employment with respondent no.5. The Commissioner held that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.400/- per month towards wages and Rs.200/- towards bhatta and hence, the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs.53,760/-. According to the commissioner, bhatta paid to the deceased could not be said to be a part of the 'wages' under Section 2(1)(m) of the Act of 1923. The insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the Commissioner on 13.09.1990. 6. According to the commissioner, bhatta paid to the deceased could not be said to be a part of the 'wages' under Section 2(1)(m) of the Act of 1923. The insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the Commissioner on 13.09.1990. 6. Shri. Thakur, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal committed a serious error in holding that the amount paid to the deceased towards bhatta could be included in term 'wages' as defined under section 2(l)(m) of the Act of 1923. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on a perusal of the pleadings and evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased was receiving a bhatta of Rs.10/- per day when ever the truck was plied out of Amravati city and this was clearly in the nature of a travelling concession. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the travelling allowance or value of any travelling concession is excluded from the term 'wages' as defined under Section 2(1)(m) of the Act of 1923. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgments reported in 1993 ACJ 542, 1988 ACJ 244 and an unreported judgment of this Court dated 14.08.2009 in First Appeal No.276/1995 to substantiate his submission. 7. Shri. Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the claimants/respondent nos. 1 to 4 supported the judgment passed by the Commissioner and submitted that the Commissioner had rightly held that the amount paid to Azizshah towards daily bhatta could be included in the term 'wages' as defined under Section 2(l)(m) of the Act of 1923. It is submitted on behalf of the claimants that though the father of the deceased has not, in so many words, explained the situation in which the bhatta was paid to the deceased, it is apparent from the record that the bhatta was paid because the deceased was required to perform some special duties of cleaning outside the city of Amravati. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 sought for the dismissal of the appeal. 8. Shri. Saboo, the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 supported the case of the insurance company and submitted that the bhatta paid to the deceased could not fall within the ambit of the term 'wages' as defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the Act of 1923. 9. 8. Shri. Saboo, the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 supported the case of the insurance company and submitted that the bhatta paid to the deceased could not fall within the ambit of the term 'wages' as defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the Act of 1923. 9. When this appeal was admitted by this Court on 29.04.1991, it appears that no substantial question of law was framed. It is necessary to consider whether any substantial question of law indeed arises for consideration in this first appeal as a first appeal cannot be entertained in view of the provisions of Section 30 of the Act of 1923 if no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. 10. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 13.09.1990, it appears that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this first appeal. I) Whether the bhatta paid to the deceased employee could fall within the ambit of term 'wages' as defined under Section 2(l)m of the Act of 1923 ? 11. To answer the aforesaid substantial question of law, it would be necessary to consider the pleadings and the evidence tendered in this case. It is necessary to note that the claimants had categorically stated in paragraph 3 of the application that the deceased was getting an amount of Rs.400/towards wages and Rs.10/- per day as running bhatta. The respondent no.5, the employer, had admitted this position but, had pleaded that the deceased was getting an amount of Rs.200/- per month towards bhatta as the truck was plied out of Amravati only for twenty days in a month. The claimant no. 1 entered into the witness box and reiterated the fact stated in paragraph 3 of the application in regard to the payment of monthly wages and daily bhatta. On a perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence of the claimant, it is clear that Azizshah was getting Rs.10/- per day whenever the truck was plied out of Amravati. The amount of Rs.10/- per day was clearly in the nature of travelling allowance or as value of any travelling concession and the term 'wages' as defined by Section 2(1)(m) of the Act of 1923 excludes the amount received by the deceased or the injured claimant towards travelling allowance or as value of any travelling concession. The amount of Rs.10/- per day was clearly in the nature of travelling allowance or as value of any travelling concession and the term 'wages' as defined by Section 2(1)(m) of the Act of 1923 excludes the amount received by the deceased or the injured claimant towards travelling allowance or as value of any travelling concession. It is, therefore, rightly submitted on behalf of the insurance company that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the bhatta of Rs. 10/- per day or Rs.200/- per month could have been included in the term 'wages' as defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the Act of 1923. The judgments reported in 1993 ACJ 542 and 1988 ACJ 244 clearly supports the case of the appellant insurance company. It is held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the High of Orissa in the two aforesaid judgments that the daily bhatta or allowance paid to a driver on days of duty in addition to his salary cannot be included in the term 'wages' as defined by Section 2(1)(m) of the Act of 1923. The unreported judgment of this Court dated 14.08.2009 in F.A. No.276/1995 also lends some support to the submission made on behalf of the insurance company. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative and in favour of the appellant insurance company. 12. In view of the aforesaid observations, it would be necessary to recompute the compensation payable to the claimants. It is not in dispute that the deceased was earning wages of Rs.400/- per month. Since the deceased was aged 20 at the time of the accident, the relevant factor undisputedly is 224.40% of the wages of Rs.400/- would be Rs.160/-. The claimants would, therefore, be entitled to the amount of Rs.35,840/- towards compensation by multiplying 40% of the wages by the factor of 224. 13. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the first appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the Commissioner on 13.09.1990 is hereby modified. The claimants would be entitled to an amount of Rs.35,840/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application before the Commissioner till the date of the realization of the amount. Order accordingly. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.