JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act/Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the award of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Commissioner’) dated 27.02.2012 passed in case titled, ‘Sudesh Devi and another v/s Reliance General Insurance Co. and another’. 2. The facts which arise for consideration in this appeal are, that the deceased-Kulbir Singh was driving Indica Car bearing registration No. JK02AG/6727 from Srinagar to Jammu on 02.07.2009, met with an accident at Shetani Nallah near Banihal, as a result of which, he alongwith two other occupants of the Car died on the spot. The deceased was 26 years old at the time of his death and was drawing a salary of Rs. 5000/- per month plus Rs. 2000/- as trip charges. The said vehicle at the time of accident was insured with appellant-Insurance Company. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its objections before the Commissioner, however, respondent No. 3-Owner of the offending vehicle appeared in person once before the Commissioner, but thereafter as he absented himself, therefore, was proceeded ex-parte. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Commissioner: “(1) Whether the deceased Kulbir Singh falls under the definition of “employee” as prescribed under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. OPP (2) Whether the deceased met with an accident arising out of and during the course of his employment for respondent No. 2 OPP (3) Whether the vehicle in question and involved in accident was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy at the time of accident. OPR-1 (4) What was the age and wages of the deceased at the time of accident. OPP (5) Relief.” 4. OPR-1 (4) What was the age and wages of the deceased at the time of accident. OPP (5) Relief.” 4. Before taking up the issues and the finding returned by the Commissioner, it is necessary to refer sub-sections 1(a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act regarding which the appeal lies and the same are reproduced below: (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) 1 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.” The other two provisos are not relevant for the consideration of this appeal. 5. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 01.06.2013 but without framing the substantial questions of law. The appellant has, however, framed the substantial questions of law in the grounds A to G of the appeal for determination, they however, are to be considered on the finding returned on the issues and in the light of the pleadings and challenge to the findings. 6. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are taken up together. The appellant has, however, framed the substantial questions of law in the grounds A to G of the appeal for determination, they however, are to be considered on the finding returned on the issues and in the light of the pleadings and challenge to the findings. 6. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are taken up together. The respondent No. 1 and the minor son of the deceased Kulbir Singh in Para-2 of the claim petition have stated that on 02.05.2009, while coming from Srinagar to Jammu, the deceased was driving the vehicle Indica Car bearing Registration No. JK02AG-6727 and when he reached near Shetani Nalla, the vehicle met with an accident as a result of which, he alongwith two occupants died on spot as a result fatal injuries suffered by them. The respondent No. 1, no doubt has referred to the car as taxi cab, but the question is whether the car was used as taxi cab only because of two occupants who were in the car or was there any other evidence to show that it was being used as Taxi cab. There is no evidence to show that two persons who died, alongwith the deceased, were either passengers or friends of the deceased, who had given them lift. 7. Mr. Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has vehemently argued that, finding of the Commissioner on Issue No. 3 is bad as there was violation of the conditions of the Insurance Policy and has placed reliance on the averments made in the claim petition as well as the copy of the FIR. However, Taxi cab as referred in the claim petition does not mean that the Indica Car which as per the copy of the Policy is only five seater but in cross-examination on behalf of the insurer, the respondent No. 1/claimant has stated that the taxi cab, which the deceased was driving was a six seater. No further question was asked and she has given no registration number of the car or taxi. It is not the case of the claimants that the owner had no six seater taxi/car which the deceased was driving. The appellant could have produced the evidence in this regard or also if the said vehicle was ever challaned for being used as a Taxi. 8. It is not the case of the claimants that the owner had no six seater taxi/car which the deceased was driving. The appellant could have produced the evidence in this regard or also if the said vehicle was ever challaned for being used as a Taxi. 8. Since as per the appellant, the deceased was engaged as cab driver, but there is no evidence on record, that the owner has no taxi cab, so it was for the insurer, to exclude that the owner had no six seater vehicle, being used as taxi cab. There is no evidence that two occupants of the car with the deceased-Kulbir Singh were passengers, having booked the car from Srinagar to Jammu. There is also no presumption that the occupants, who were travelling in the car, were the passengers, and had paid fare to the deceased. No reliance can be placed on the statement of Pw-Prem Singh, who claims to be the driver of Maruti Car but was using it as a Taxi, as himself is an offender using the car as Taxi regarding copy of the First Information Report, it is based on some source information, it does not even refer to the death of the occupants. The occupants of the car cannot be presumed to be the passengers having travelled in the car in violation of the terms of the Insurance Policy. As per terms of the Policy, vehicle can be used for any purpose other than hired or reward, however, there is no evidence that it was used for hire or reward and there is also no evidence to bring the case under the aforesaid clause of the Insurance policy, therefore, finding on Issue No. 3 does not require any interference and same is, accordingly, confirmed. Since there is no rebuttal regarding wages and age is also proved, therefore, the findings on Issue No. 4 also need no interference. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has painstakingly framed the substantial question of laws from A to G of the appeal but the questions framed by him are not substantial questions of law. Since there is no rebuttal regarding wages and age is also proved, therefore, the findings on Issue No. 4 also need no interference. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has painstakingly framed the substantial question of laws from A to G of the appeal but the questions framed by him are not substantial questions of law. None of the documents referred by him can be relied upon especially copy of the insurance policy on which reliance is placed in the absence of evidence that the vehicle was used as a taxi in violation of law can be proved, as no evidence was produced by the appellant and rightly so, as there could be none. Moreover, the deceased was authorized to drive light motor vehicle, a Car is a light motor vehicle assuming it was used as taxi cab, it does not lose its character as a light motor vehicle. 10. Mr. Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant further argued that use of a car as taxi requires different driving license but such a contention is fallacious. It may be violation of terms of the Policy if a car is used as a taxi but no separate driving license is required for driving a car even as taxi. However, as there is no evidence that the car was being used as Taxi on the date of accident, therefore, this question is without any substance. The Commissioner under Employee’s Compensation Act has rightly held that the driving license was valid. Question No. B of the appeal is also without any substance. It is wrong to say that the Commissioner had to decide the case on the pleadings ignoring the evidence as stated in Questions (D, E & F). Commissioner has acted strictly in accordance with law. 11. Question (G) is also wrongly framed as substantial question of law because there is no evidence that the car was used as taxi. It has been held by the Commissioner as well as by this Court that there was no evidence to support the Questions. The deceased was not driving the passenger vehicle because the car is not a passenger vehicle; it is a fallacious argument having no basis. It has been held by the Commissioner as well as by this Court that there was no evidence to support the Questions. The deceased was not driving the passenger vehicle because the car is not a passenger vehicle; it is a fallacious argument having no basis. Thus, reference to Sections 66 & 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is also misplaced because there is no evidence that the car was being used as a taxi, so as to attract Sections 66 & 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which have absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. 12. It is wrong to say that the award is contrary to any judgment referred to in the questions. The award is passed on appreciation of evidence with due regard to questions of law. It is clear that the owner has indemnified the Insurer both in respect of award as well as interest awarded under Section 4(a) of the Act. So the entire amount is payable by the appellant-company. 13. In terms of section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, an appeal filed is not to be considered as a regular appeal but in fact the only question which is to be considered is, whether any substantial question of law is involved. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ‘(2019) 11 Supreme Court Cases 514’, ‘North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha’ has held that: “9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act. 10. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act. 10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.” 14. Since all the issues raised are issues of fact and not of law and as appeal lies only, if substantial question of law arises, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable as no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 15. In view of the aforesaid, there is no substantial question of law raised in this appeal. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected IA(s), if any.