JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, Insurance Company, has laid this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1923') assailing the impugned verdict dated 17th March, 2005 passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Bhilwara (for short, 'the learned Commissioner'). 2. The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that respondent-claimants filed an application under Section 22 of the Act of 1923 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,18,470/- only with interest and penalty. In the claim petition, the claimants have, inter alia, averred that deceased, Mohammad Salim, was in employment of respondent, M/s. Universal Ice-cream Private Ltd., as a driver and the said vehicle was insured with the appellant, Insurance Company. On the fateful day of 26th September, 2001, the accident occurred during the course of and out of an employment, which resulted in death of Mohammad Salim. On the anvil of these facts, the respondents claimants by asserting that they are the dependents of the deceased claimed the requisite amount of compensation. 3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant, Insurance Company, before the learned Commissioner. The respondent-employer has admitted in clear and unequivocal terms that the deceased was in its employment and the accident has occurred during the course of and out of employment. The learned Commissioner after considering the evidence of the rival parties and other materials on record allowed the claim of the respondents and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,36,940/- with interest and penalty and total amount was quantified to the tune of Rs. 5,63,999/- only. The requisite amount was deposited by the appellant-insurer and as per the information divulged by the rival parties, the amount has been disbursed to the respondent-claimants. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there was a serious dispute about the factum of employment and while deciding the said issue, the learned Commissioner has not appreciated the evidence and other materials on record. Mr. Johari further submits that the finding of the learned Commissioner on Issue No. 1 is absolutely perverse, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 5. Mr. Mahendra Prajapat appearing for the respondent-claimants has urged that there is no infirmity with respect to finding of the learned Commissioner on Issue No. 1, and therefore, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 5. Mr. Mahendra Prajapat appearing for the respondent-claimants has urged that there is no infirmity with respect to finding of the learned Commissioner on Issue No. 1, and therefore, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. Mr. Prajapat further submits that the factum of employment is a pure question of fact and the same has been decided by learned Commissioner in favour of respondent-claimants on appreciation of evidence, which cannot be faulted. Mr. Prajapat has argued with full vehemence that appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 can be entertained only when there is a substantial question of law involved in the matter and in the instant case, there is no substantial question of law involved and as such no interference is warranted. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, 4 perused the impugned order and record of the learned Commissioner. 7. On examining the impugned order and record of the case, in my considered opinion, the finding of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner that relationship of employee and employer, between deceased and the existed fifth respondent, is based on proper appreciation of evidence and other materials on record. Even otherwise, the employer himself has very candidly admitted that the deceased was in his employment and the accident has occurred during the course of and out of employment. 8. Examining the matter in its entirety, in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is involved in the matter and this Court is not obliged to appreciate the finding of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Act of 1923. 9. The net result of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******