ORDER 1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in A.O. No.553 of 2005 whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 herein. 2. A few facts need mention infra for the disposal of this appeal. 3. It is a case of injury caused to respondent No.1-a driver while driving the vehicle on 06.05.2002. The injuries sustained by respondent No.1 were serious in nature and caused to him on head and some other parts of the body. These injuries were caused during the course of his employment and they arose out of the employment. Due to the injuries, respondent No.1 suffered permanent disability. 4. Respondent No.1, therefore, filed a claim petition under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in the Court of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Tehri Garhwal against the appellant-Insurance Company and respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The appellant and respondent No. 2 contested the claim petition. The Commissioner dismissed the claim petition by his order dated 26.10.2005 which gave rise to filing of appeal by respondent No.1 (workman) under Section 30 of the Act in the High Court of Uttarakhand. By impugned order, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 herein(workman) and awarded him a sum of Rs.3,21,598/- towards the compensation for the injuries sustained by him which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the Insurance Company in this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal finding no merit therein. 7. In our opinion, we have not been able to notice any arguable point in this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal finding no merit therein. 7. In our opinion, we have not been able to notice any arguable point in this appeal. First, the High Court held and rightly that the accident occurred during the course of employment and arising out of employment; Second, it was held and again rightly that respondent No.1 was a driver working with the insured and sustained injuries while he was on duty and driving the vehicle which was insured with the appellant on the date of accident; Third, it was further held and rightly that on account of the injuries sustained, respondent No.1 suffered a permanent disability and, therefore, he was entitled to claim a sum of Rs.3,21,598/- with interest keeping in view the parameters provided for determining the payment of compensation payable for the injuries sustained by the workman under the Act. 8. In our view, all the aforementioned findings are findings of fact and were rightly recorded by the High Court while allowing the respondent No.1's appeal. These findings are neither perverse nor against the evidence and nor against any provision of law and hence does not call for any interference. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the accident in question occurred on account of brake failure and, therefore, neither the insured and nor the insurer can be held liable for such accident. This submission has no basis. It is, in our view, a pure question of fact and once it was gone into by the High Court and finding recorded, it is binding on this Court. 10. To conclude, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.