ORDER : 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 30.4.2009 passed by Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation (to be referred as Commissioner), Jaipur City, Jaipur in Case No. WCC NF 94/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Claimant-Respondent has preferred a claim petition under the provisions of Workman Compensation Act, 1923 (to be referred as the Act of 1923) stating therein that he was working as Khalsi on truck No. RJ-1425-7408 under the employment of non claimant owner sustained injuries on 19.6.2017. It was further contended that at the time of accident he was 37 years of age and was getting Rs. 4,000/- per month as wages. A sum of Rs. 4,61,136/- was claimed a compensation with interest of penalty. 3. The appellant Insurance Company find the reply to the claim application and denied the averments. Violation of policy conditions were also pleaded. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the claim application. 4. The learned Commissioner vide judgment and the order dated 30.4.2009 partly allowed the claim application and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,21,997/- in favour of the claimants as compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Commissioner has wrongly decided issue No .2. Counsel further submits that the doctor has issued the permanent disability certification in favour of the claimant for 13%, whereas the learned Commissioner while assessing the loss of earning capacity has wrongly taken into consideration as 30%. Learned counsel further submitted that the finding given by the learned Commissioner on issue No. 4 is perverse and the learned Commissioner has wrongly held the monthly salary of the claimant as Rs. 4,000/- whereas the same should have been according to Minimum Wages Act. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the learned Commissioner and submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The first argument raised by the counsel for the appellant regarding finding given by the learned Commissioner on issue No. 2 is not acceptable. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The first argument raised by the counsel for the appellant regarding finding given by the learned Commissioner on issue No. 2 is not acceptable. Learned Commissioner considered the injuries sustained by the claimant and also considered the opinion of the doctor which says “he will have difficulty in long standing, running, walking, driving and squatting.” Therefore, in my opinion, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and also considering the nature of job performed by the claimant. The learned Commissioner has rightly held the loss of earning capacity as 30%. 9. In my opinion, Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Golla Rajanna and Others vs. The Divisional Manager and Others, 2017 (1) SCC 45 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; (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) 10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. 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.” 10. The next argument raised by the counsel for the appellant regarding wrong finding given by the learned Commissioner on issue No.4 is also not acceptable. The learned Commissioner on the basis of evidence submitted by the claimant regarding monthly salary as Rs. 4,000/- and also considering the reply submitted by the employer held that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 4,000/- per month. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaya Biswal and Others vs. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Another, (2016) 11 SCC 201 has held as under:- “28. Since neither of the parties produced any document on record to prove the exact amount of wages being earned by the deceased at the time of the accident, to arrive at the amount of wages, the learned Commissioner took into consideration the fact that the deceased was a highly skilled workman and would often be required to undertake long journeys outside the State in the line of duty, especially considering the fact that the vehicle in question had a registered National Route Permit. The wages of the deceased were accepted as Rs. 4000 per month+daily bhatta of Rs. 6000 per month, which amounts to a total of Rs. 10,000. The High Court did not give any reason on which amounts to a total of Rs. 10,000. The High Court did not give any reason on which basis it interfered with the finding recorded by the Commissioner on the aspect of monthly wages earned by the deceased. The impugned judgment does not even mention what according to the High Court, the wages of the deceased were at the time of the accident. 10,000. The High Court did not give any reason on which basis it interfered with the finding recorded by the Commissioner on the aspect of monthly wages earned by the deceased. The impugned judgment does not even mention what according to the High Court, the wages of the deceased were at the time of the accident. Such an unnecessary interference on the part of the High Court was absolutely uncalled for, especially in the light of the fact that Appellants 1 and 2 are old and have lost their elder son and they have become destitute.” 11. Thus, in view of the above discussion no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal as such the appeal as well as stay application stands dismissed.