JUDGMENT : Inderjeet Singh, J. The instant appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.10.1999 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner Jaipur City, Jaipur in suit No. 39/93. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants have filed the claim petition before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation stating therein that Shri Ramphal was engaged as Conductor with Vehicle Truck No.HYD-1837 and the respondent No. 8 Shri Surjeet Kumar is the owner of the said vehicle. It was further stated that the said truck was met with an accident and due to injuries sustained by Shri Ramphal, he died on 17.12.1991. 3. It was further stated that at the time of accident Shri Ramphal was of 23 years of age and was getting Rs. 1,000/- per month as salary. The accident took place when deceased Ramphal was working under the employment of owner of the vehicle and lastly prayed for awarding the compensation. 4. The appellant-insurance company filed a reply to the claim petition and contended that there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy and the driver of the vehicle has not valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, the appellant-insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Counsel for the appellant argued that the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation has wrongly decided the issue No. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimant and wrongly awarded the compensation. Counsel further submits that the relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and owner of the vehicle was also not established. Counsel further submits that the finding given by the Commissioner is against the material available on record. 6. None present on behalf of the respondent despite service. 7. Heard counsel for the appellant. 8. The contention raised by the appellant regarding wrong finding given by the Commissioner on issue No. 1 and 2 is not acceptable in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna and Others v. Divisional Manager decided on 23.11.2016 reported in (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases Page 45 in which para para 8, 9 and 10 the Supreme Court held as under:- "8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows: 30. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows: 30. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely: (a) an order 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 dependants 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 Sub-section (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: (Emphasis supplied) 9. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability. It is purely a question of fact. There is no case for the insurance company that the finding is based on no evidence at all or that it is perverse. Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage of permanent disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical practitioner. There is no case for the Respondents that the doctor who issued the disability certificate is not a qualified medical practitioner, as defined under the Act. Thus, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has passed the order based on the certificate of disability issued by the doctor and which has been duly proved before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. 10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. 10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court Under Section 30 of the Act." 9. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), I am not inclined to interfere in the present appeal for the reasons firstly no substantial question of law is made out in favour of the appellant, secondly, the Commissioner is the last authority on facts, thirdly, the judgment passed by the Commissioner on 20.10.1999 and no interim order was passed by this Court in favour of the appellant and the amount may have been received by the claimants. 10. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellant is, hereby, dismissed.