JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this civil misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment and award dated 30.8.2007 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "Commissioner") in Claim Case No. WCCNF/109/06 titled as Subey Singh Yadav v. Umrao & Anr., whereby an amount of Rs. 1,58,364/- has been awarded in favour of claimant/respondent Shri Subey Singh Yadav and against the appellant-Insurance Company. 2. Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the claimant/respondent Shri Subey Singh Yadav filed a claim petition against the appellant/Insurance Company and respondent No.2 Shri Umrao Singh (registered owner of Tractor No. HR.16-B-9269) claiming compensation on account of loss suffered by him due to the injuries caused in an accident allegedly occurred on 21.11.2005 when he was working as a driver under the instructions of respondent No.2 Shri Umrao Singh on a Tractor No.HR.16-B-9269. According to the claimant, when he was going from Kotputali to Gordhanpura, a jeep suddenly came in front of his tractor and as a result of this, the tractor was overturned and the claimant sustained injuries and finally suffered permanent disablement of 20.5%. By way of claim petition, the claimant claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,33,820/- against the owner and the Insurance Company on the ground that he was 25 years of age and was getting a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month and he suffered a permanent disablement of 20.5% while under employment with the owner of the tractor and this tractor was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company at the time of the accident. 3. The appellant/Insurance Company as well as respondent/owner filed their respective replies to the claim petition. The respondent/owner admitted the facts that the claimant was employed by him as a driver and was being paid a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month. The owner has further stated that at the time of the accident, the tractor was insured with the Insurance Company and prayed that the liability for payment of compensation may be fastened upon the Insurance Company. 4. 4000/- per month. The owner has further stated that at the time of the accident, the tractor was insured with the Insurance Company and prayed that the liability for payment of compensation may be fastened upon the Insurance Company. 4. The appellant/Insurance Company in it's reply admitted the fact that the tractor was insured with it and pleaded that no premium was charged by the appellant to cover the risk of any other person including the claimant and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. It was further stated that the tractor was covered under the 'Kishan Package Policy', but no additional premium was charged for the driver by the appellant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, necessary five issues were framed by the learned Commissioner. The claimant himself was examined as a witness and got exhibited seven documents. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of Insurance Company and three documents were produced by it. After hearing the respective parties, the learned Commissioner passed the impugned judgment and award of Rs. 1,58,364/- along with interest @ 12% per annum calculated from one month after the date of judgment i.e. from 30.9.2007 and it was ordered that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant/Insurance Company is before this Court by way of this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the accident in question is doubtful as no FIR has been lodged with regard to the accident and there is no mention in the bed head ticket of the fact that the injuries had been sustained by the claimant in RTA thus, the so called accident is merely fabrication of facts to get compensation from the appellant. 8. Learned counsel further contended that even if the accident is presumed to have taken place in the manner as stated by the claimant, the owner of the tractor has deposed to the investigator of the Insurance Company that he was paying a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the claimant and as against this, the claimant has deposed in evidence that he was being paid a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the claimant and as against this, the claimant has deposed in evidence that he was being paid a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month by the owner of the tractor, but the learned Commissioner instead of relying on the documentary evidence produced by the Insurance Company i.e. statement of owner of the vehicle, has relied on the oral statement of the claimant. Thus, the amount of the award is required to be modified by taking into account the income of the claimant to be Rs. 2000/- per month only. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the record made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions. 10. Section 30 of the Act provides that an appeal can be filed only on substantial question of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised following question in this case : "(a) Whether the Court of the Commissioner, W. C. Act, 1923 has rightly awarded compensation merely on the basis of oral evidence of the claimant without any corroboratory documentary evidence regarding involvement of the tractor in the accident as well as the payment of Rs. 3000/- per month as wages to the claimant ?" 11. My findings on the question raised aforesaid, are as below : 12. In view of the fact that the owner/respondent has not denied, rather he admitted the fact that claimant/respondent was employed under his employment as a driver, thus this fact cannot be said to be disputed. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time, the tractor was comprehensively insured with the appellant and it covers the risk of driver of the tractor. The owner of the aforesaid tractor i.e. respondent No.2 has stated in his reply that the claimant/respondent was driver of aforesaid tractor and on 21.11.2005 he was driving the same and the accident occurred due to which the claimant/respondent sustained injuries. With regard to documentary evidence of the injuries sustained by the claimant/respondent is concerned, the discharge ticket of Govt. B. D. M. Hospital, Kotputali (Ex.1) is on record, which shows that the claimant got fracture of lower ?rd of radius in RTA and was admitted in this hospital on 21.11.2005 and was discharged on 22.11.2005. With regard to documentary evidence of the injuries sustained by the claimant/respondent is concerned, the discharge ticket of Govt. B. D. M. Hospital, Kotputali (Ex.1) is on record, which shows that the claimant got fracture of lower ?rd of radius in RTA and was admitted in this hospital on 21.11.2005 and was discharged on 22.11.2005. The discharge ticket of SMS Hospital, Jaipur (Ex.2) also shows that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 26.11.2005 and was discharged on 29.11.2005 and it also shows that the claimant got fracture in Gralleazi of left hand. The disablement certificate (Ex.4) issued by SMS Hospital, Jaipur shows that the claimant has suffered 20.5% disability due to Gralleazi fracture dislocation. In the disablement certificate, it is mentioned that the injured Sube Singh has restricted movement of left elbow joint and he is unable to fully .....(illegible) and extensive of elbow joint .....(illegible) has pain and difficulty in working by left hand. From the evidence of the claimant Sube Singh, it is also proved that he was having valid driving licence to drive LMV+Tractor, which is available on record as Ex.7. In rebuttal of the aforesaid evidence, the Insurance Company/appellant neither produced any evidence nor any cross-examination has been done on this point. 13. Regarding objection of not lodging of FIR is concerned, there is no provision in the Act of 1923 that FIR must be lodged after the accident is occurred. It is well settled position of law that mere not lodging of FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. In the present case, the point regarding not lodging of FIR has been considered by the learned Commissioner and the same has rightly been rejected looking to the facts and evidence on record. In addition to this, the owner/respondent in his reply, has admitted the facts of employment of the claimant/respondent as a driver of his tractor and also admitted the fact of the accident and did not deny the fact of injuries suffered by the claimant in this accident. 14. The learned Commissioner has also considered the fact that no documentary evidence has been produced to prove the income of the claimant to be Rs. 4000/- per month, but while comparing to the prevailing salary rates i.e. Rs. 100/- per day, salary of the driver comes to Rs. 14. The learned Commissioner has also considered the fact that no documentary evidence has been produced to prove the income of the claimant to be Rs. 4000/- per month, but while comparing to the prevailing salary rates i.e. Rs. 100/- per day, salary of the driver comes to Rs. 3000/- per month, which in the present scenario is not on higher side. It has also been considered by the learned Commissioner that at the time of the accident, the claimant was only 23 years of age and awarded compensation holding the loss of earning capacity to be 40%. Apart from that, the above contentions of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be said to be substantial questions of law. 15. No other 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 appellant/Insurance Company can be said to be tenable. 16. On consideration of submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and having regard to the material made available on record and more particularly looking to the reasons recorded by the learned Commissioner in support of the impugned judgment and pleadings taken by the parties, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the impugned judgment requiring interference by this Court. 17. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.