ORDER : INDERJEET SINGH, J. 1. Heard on admission of the appeal. 2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 24.10.2007 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Sikar in Case No. WC/F/6/2007. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent No.1 to 4 filed claim application before the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sikar against the appellant and respondent No.5 and 6 under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,85,000/- along with interest on account of the alleged death of Lakhvinder Singh @ Lakhi on 17.12.2006. When he was deployed as driver on Truck No.HR-38A-7915 under the employment of respondent No.5 and when he was going from Chandigarh to Raipur along with the truck in the way under the territorial jurisdiction of Jhinjhana (U.P.) Police Station, when he was cleaning the glass of the truck by parking it by side of the road another vehicle collided with the truck of the deceased. As a result of which he sustained injuries and ultimately died. It was also pleaded that the claimants are originally residing of Salempura Sekha, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab) and now, they are living in Sikar. Lastly, they prayed for awarding the compensation. The appellant-insurance company filed its reply and denied the averments of the claim petition and pleaded that the learned Commissioner has got no jurisdiction to entertain the claim application, the relationship of employee and employer is not proved and violation of policy conditions of insurance policy were also pleaded lastly prayed for dismissal of the claim application. The appellant has mainly argued that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim petition as admittedly the claimants were originally resident of village Salempura Sekha, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab) whereas the claim application has been filed at Sikar. Counsel further submits that the Commissioner has wrongly awarded the interest from the date of accident whereas the same should have been awarded from the date of award. Violation of policy conditions were also argued. 4. Heard counsel for the appellant. 5. Counsel further submits that the Commissioner has wrongly awarded the interest from the date of accident whereas the same should have been awarded from the date of award. Violation of policy conditions were also argued. 4. Heard counsel for the appellant. 5. The contentions raised by the appellant were duly considered by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and the Commissioner after considering the evidence oral as well as documentary available on record given a finding in favour of the claimants and held that the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Sikar has jurisdiction to hear the claim application. I have considered the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant and I find no illegality in deciding issue No.1 by the Commissioner regarding having the territorial jurisdiction in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Limited and Ors. reported in 2016 ACJ 542 wherein in Para No.12, 14 and 15 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "12. We are thus of the view that in the face of judgment of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra), the High Court was not justified in setting aside the award of the Tribunal in absence of any failure of justice even if there was merit in the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, the fact remained that the insurance company which was the main contesting respondent had its business at Kolkata. 14. The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra), contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of section 21 CPC. 15. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the award of the Tribunal." 6. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra), contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of section 21 CPC. 15. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the award of the Tribunal." 6. The next contention raised by the appellant regarding other award the interest from the date of accident is also not acceptable in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. Reported in (2014) 2 SCC 298 wherein in para No.10 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 10."In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court are set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the accident. No Costs." 7. The last contention raised by the appellant regarding driver of the vehicle was not having the valid driving licence. This fact was considered by the Commissioner and after considering the evidence available on record and also the fact that the insurance company has not filed any evidence in support of their contention and therefore given a finding in favour of the claimant and the Commissioner is the last authority on facts as held by the 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 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." 8. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appeal was filed in the year 2008 and no interim order was passed by this Court in favour of the appellant. 9. Thus in view of the above discussion, no case is made out in favour of the appellant for the reasons firstly, no substantial question of law is made out in this appeal. Secondly, the Tribunal is having the jurisdiction to decide the claim petition in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malati Sardar (supra) and thirdly the interest has wrongly been awarded from the date of accident in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. (supra). 10. In that view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed.