JUDGMENT Inderjeet Singh, J. - The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Jaipur District-II, Jaipur in Claim No.WCCNF 458/2010. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant/respondent filed a claim application before the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District-II under section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 against the appellant and respondent No. 2 claiming compensation on account of alleged loss suffered due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 23.10.2009 when as per the claimant he was working as driver of Indica Car No.RJ-14/CG-0305 under the employment of Shri Prakash Singh Chauhan which was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. When the said vehicle reached near DCM Surana Farm, Heerapura, it suddenly collided with the school bus, in which Shri Rajkumar sustained serious injuries over his leg and his leg was ultimately amputated. Therefore, the claimant prayed for awarding compensation in his favour. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application denying the averments made by the claimant. It was specifically pleaded that the claim petition deserves to be dismissed since no notice under Section 10 of the Act of 1923 was served. It was also pleaded that even otherwise there was no loss of earning capacity to the claimant on account of the alleged injuries and the vehicle was being used in contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, the appellant-Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Counsel for the appellant has argued that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle. Counsel further argued that according to disability certificate the claimant sustained 72% permanent disability whereas while assessing the loss of earning capacity the Commissioner has taken into consideration 100% loss of earning capacity on account of said injury. 5. Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment passed by the Commissioner and stated that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and the Commissioner is last authority on facts. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. I have considered the submission made by the Counsel for the appellant regarding no relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. I have considered the submission made by the Counsel for the appellant regarding no relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle. This contention is not acceptable in view of the fact that the Commissioner while deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2 has given a finding of fact in favour of the claimant. 8. So far as next contention raised by the Counsel for the appellant regarding wrongful assessment of earning capacity is concerned, the said contention is also not acceptable for the reason the same is a finding of fact and Commissioner has given a definite finding regarding loss of earning capacity to be 100% while deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of evidence available on record. 9. Hon''ble Supreme Court in Golla Rajanna & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., (2017) 1 SCC 45 , in paragraphs 8 to 10 has 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. 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 elfare 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." 10. Thus in view of the above discussion, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed for the reasons, firstly no substantial question of law is made out in this appeal; secondly the Commissioner has rightly assessed the loss of earning capacity due to the accident to be 100% because his leg was amputated, and thirdly the Commissioner is last authority on facts. 11. In this view of the matter, the present appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.