JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J The instant appeal for enhancement of compensation, has been preferred by the claimant/appellants under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment dated 5.2.2016 passed by Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner) in WCCF/05/2014, whereby the learned Commissioner passed an award of Rs.7,69,825/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident, in favour of the claimant/appellants. 2. Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that a claim petition was filed by the claimant/appellants under the provisions of the Act for getting amount of compensation of Rs.8,89,800/- alongwith 18% interest per annum on account of death of Prabhuram in an incident. It was averred in the petition that the deceased-Prabhuram was employed as Cleaner of Vehicle bearing Registration No.RJ-21-EA-362 and the said vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. It was also averred that on 18.6.2013, the deceased Prabhuram was going in the aforesaid vehicle in the capacity of Cleaner alongwith two other persons from Kalyansar towards Dusarna Bada. The said vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by its driver Parsaram. When the vehicle reached near village Dusarna, one electric wire got hit with Prabhuram and due to which he was electrocuted. The deceased Prabhuram was taken to PBM Hospital, Bikaner, where he was declared dead. The respondent/non claimants No.1 & 2 filed reply to the claim petition. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed necessary five issues. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Commissioner decided the Issue No.1 in the manner that deceased Prabhuram died while working under the employment of respondent No.1. Issue No.2 was decided in the manner that the deceased was of the age of 23 years at the time of incident and was getting Rs.7,000/- per month and claimants are legal representatives of the deceased. Issue No.3 was decided in the manner that the Insurance Company failed to prove any breach of policy conditions. Issues No.4 & 5 were decided in the manner that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.7,69,825/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum alongwith Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 5.2.2016, the claimant/appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. Issues No.4 & 5 were decided in the manner that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.7,69,825/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum alongwith Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 5.2.2016, the claimant/appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellants submits that the learned Commissioner has committed an error while assessing the income of the deceased to be only Rs.7,000/- per month, whereas it has been proved by unrebutted evidence that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.8000/- per month alongwith daily allowance of Rs.100/- that comes to Rs.11,000/- per month. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Commissioner manifestly erred in awarding interest on the compensation @ 12% per annum from the date of accident, whereas Section 4 of the Act entitles the employee of interest @18% per annum. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Commissioner has erred in not awarding penalty to the claimant/appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has seriously opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that the appeal against the impugned judgment is not maintainable, as no any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the record made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions. Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 provides for an appeal to the High Court from the orders passed by the Commissioner and enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of sub- Section (1) of Section 30. Proviso to Section 30(1), however, makes it abundantly clear that no appeal shall lie unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees. Section 30(1) reads as under: "30. Section 30(1) reads as under: "30. Appeals.- (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:- (a) an order as awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; [(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A;] (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependents of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties: Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against." 7. What is important is that in terms of the 1st proviso, no appeal is maintainable against any order passed by the Commissioner unless a substantial question of law is involved. This necessarily implies that the High Court would in the ordinary course formulate such a question or at least address the same in the judgment especially when the High Court takes a view contrary to the view taken by the Commissioner. 8. In my view, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no substantial question of law can be said to have arisen in the present case. 8. In my view, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no substantial question of law can be said to have arisen in the present case. As discussed above, none of the contentions made on behalf of the claimant/appellants can be said to be tenable, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.