JUDGMENT Inderjeet Singh, J. - The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 03.10.2011 passed by Commissioner Workmen''s Compensation, Jaipur-II, Jaipur in Case No.WCCNF/485/2010. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1-claimant filed a claim petition for compensation with the averments that on 10.08.2008 claimant-respondent No. 1 was working under the course of employment of respondent No. 2 as workman on Vehicle No.RJ-21-GA-1339 as Khallasi. It was submitted that respondent-claimant No. 1 sustained injuries when he was hit by a Trailor No.PV-46-E-9651 while he was checking the vehicle on road side resulting into fracture in both legs due to which he became permanently disabled. It was further submitted that the claimant at the time of 25 years of age and was earning Rs. 6,500/- per month. Thus, claimed Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation from the non-claimants. The appellant-insurance company submitted reply to the claim petition with the averments that the appellant-insurance company has not covered the risk of Khallasi as no premium has been charged for Khallasi. Further, the claimant was not working under the employment of respondent No. 2-Rameshwar Lal and he was not sustained injuries arising out of the accident and in the course of his employment. There is no master and servant relationship between them. Objection regarding violation of policy conditions was also taken. The Commissioner Workmen''s Compensation vide order dated 03.10.2011 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,06,069/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 10.08.2008. 3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, Issue No. 1 has wrongly decided by the Commissioner. Counsel further submits that the Commissioner Workmen''s Compensation has wrongly decided issue No. 2 because the doctor has issued permanent disability certificate in favour of the claimant for 26.88% whereas the Commissioner has considered the professional disability to the tune of 40% while assessing the compensation. 4. Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the learned Commissioner and argued that the Commissioner is the last authority on facts and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. 4. Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the learned Commissioner and argued that the Commissioner is the last authority on facts and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The first contention raised by the counsel for the appellant regarding no relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle is not acceptable in view of the fact that the Commissioner after considering the evidence produced by both the parties has given a finding on issue No. 1 in favour of claimant holding that the respondent-claimant was under the employment of owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No. 2 at the time of accident and he sustained injuries during the course of his employment. 7. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Golla Rajanna and Ors. vs. The Divisional Manager and Ors., reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 in which para 09 & 10 has held as under:- "09. 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. 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. 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. Thus the issue No. 1 has rightly been decided by learned Commissioner. The second contention raised by counsel for the appellant regarding wrongly deciding issue No. 2 is also not acceptable because the Commissioner while deciding issue No. 2 has considered the fact that the claimant was working as Khallasi and the Commissioner has also considered the professional disability while assessing the loss of earning capacity. The Commissioner has considered the fact that the claimant sustained injuries like fracture in both his legs, fracture in one hand and injuries on head and his eye. Therefore, the Commissioner considering these injuries rightly held that there is a loss of 40% in earning capacity. 9. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Shrinivas Sabata and another, wherein para no. 5 & 8 has held as under:- "5. The expression "total disablement" has been defined in Section 2(i)(1) of the Act as follows: (1) "total disablement" means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement. It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such a nature as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the question for consideration is whether the disablement incapacitated the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded his finding as follows: "The injured workmen in this case is carpenter by profession. By loss of the left hand above the elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as he work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only. This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to assail it on any ground and it does not require to be corrected in this appeal. This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to assail it on any ground and it does not require to be corrected in this appeal. There is also no justification for the other argument which has been advanced with reference to item 3 of Part II of Schedule I, because it was not the appellant''s case before the Commissioner that amputation of the arm was from 8" from tip of acromion to less than 41/2" below the tip of olecranon. A new case cannot therefore be allowed to be set up on facts which have not been admitted or established. 8. It was the duty of the appellant, under Section 4A(1) of the Act, to pay the compensation at the rate provided by Section 4 as soon as the personal injury was caused to the respondent. He failed to do so. What is worse, he did not even make a provisional payment under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 for, as has been stated, he went to the extent of taking the false pleas that the respondent was a casual contractor and that the accident occurred solely because of his negligence. Then there is the further fact that he paid no need to the respondent''s personal approach for obtaining the compensation. It will be recalled that the respondent was driven to the necessity of making an application to the Commissioner for settling the claim, and even there the appellant raised a frivolous objection as to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and prevailed on the respondent to file a memorandum of agreement settling the claim for a sum which was so grossly inadequate that it was rejected by the Commissioner. In these facts and circumstances, we have no doubt that the Commissioner was fully justified in making an order for the payment of interest and the penalty." 10. Thus in view of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court (supra), the Learned Commissioner has rightly given a finding on issue No. 2. 11. In view of the above discussion, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal thus the appeal filed by the appellant as well as the stay application stands dismissed.