JUDGMENT Inderjeet Singh, J. - The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 07.07.2007 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Sikar (to be referred as Commissioner) in case No. WCC of F 51 of 06. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.11.2006 deceased Chhitarmal @ Chhitar Singh @ Nandu Singh was working as driver on truck No. RJ-23G-2505. On 12.11.2006 when the said truck reached at NH No. 11, near Trilokpura bus stand the said truck was unbalanced and collided with the tree resulting death of driver of the truck Shri Chhitarmal @ Chhitar Singh @ Nandu Singh. It was further stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was 28 years of age and was getting Rs. 6000/- per month as salary. Lastly prayed for awarding the compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred as Act of 1923). The appellant-insurance company filed reply to the claim application and denied the averments made in the claim application, violation of policy conditions was also pleaded. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the claim application. 3. Counsel for the respondent submits that the Learned Commissioner has wrongly decided issue No. 2 because the owner of the vehicle has stated in his reply that the driver was getting Rs. 3000/- as salary whereas the Learned Commissioner has wrongly held that the deceased was getting Rs. 4000/- per month as salary. Counsel further submits that the interest has wrongly been awarded by the learned Commissioner from the date of accident whereas the same should have been awarded from the date of judgment. 4. Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the Learned Tribunal and submits that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The first argument raised by counsel for the appellant regarding perverse finding given by the Learned Commissioner on issue No. 2 is not acceptable in view of the fact that the Learned Commissioner has given this finding based on the evidence submitted by the claimants because the claimants have pleaded the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 6000/-. However, the Commissioner has taken into consideration the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- considering the provisions of the Act of 1923. 6000/-. However, the Commissioner has taken into consideration the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- considering the provisions of the Act of 1923. In my opinion, the Commissioner is the last authority on facts as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Golla Rajanna and ors. v. The Divisional Manager and ors., reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 in which para 8 and 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 halfmonthly 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 Subsection (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) 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 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." 7. The next argument raised by counsel for the appellant regarding wrongly awarding of 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 and others v. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2014 (2) SCC 298 in which para 10 has held as under:- "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." 8. Thus in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), the Commissioner has rightly awarded the interest from the date of accident. 9. Thus in view of the above discussion, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the appellant as well as stay application stands dismissed.