JUDGMENT : 1. In this appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, challenge is to the order dated 14.05.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, in W.C.No.20/2001 (NF), granting compensation of Rs.1,06,901/- to the claimant/injured (1st respondent herein) for the injuries suffered in the accident that occurred on 08.06.1998. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition before the Commissioner stating that he was employed as driver of the Jeep bearing No.AP-25-5006 belonging to 2nd respondent herein; that on 08.06.1998, he was driving the Jeep from Valgot to Bheemgal; that at Bada Bheemgal Yellamma Cross Roads, the claimant could not control the speed, as a result the Jeep turned turtle and the claimant fell down and suffered injuries; and therefore sought a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. 3. On behalf of the claimant, the witnesses PWs.1 and 2 were examined, and the documents Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 4. The Commissioner, after considering the evidence available, awarded compensation of Rs.1,06,901/-, making both the owner and insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed the present appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company, and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-claimant. 6. The Question of Law sought to be raised by the appellant insurance company is as follows: “The award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen-Compensation cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, is not maintainable as the respondent injured was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident and was not in employment as required under law and that he was not authorized to drive the vehicle as the owner of the vehicle himself was driving the vehicle bearing No.AP-25-5006 at the time of accident. The Commissioner had erred in law in passing the award when there is no employee and employer relationship.” 7. It is to be noted that this is an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha, 2018 SCCOnline SC 2296 = Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 had held as under: 9. It is to be noted that this is an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha, 2018 SCCOnline SC 2296 = Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 had held as under: 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. 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. 11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lie only against the specific orders set out in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial question of law. 12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a Regular First Appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case. 15. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case. 15. Such appeal is then heard on the question of admission with a view to find out as to whether it involves any substantial question of law or not. Whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law or not depends upon the facts of each case and needs an examination by the High Court. If the substantial question of law arises, the High Court would admit the appeal for final hearing on merit else would dismiss in limini with reasons that it does not involve any substantial question/s of law. 8. As can be seen in the instant appeal, the Question of Law sought to be raised entirely comprises of questions of fact. It is to be noted that before the Commissioner, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced by either the owner or the insurer, except filing counter affidavits denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It is also to be noted that the Commissioner had decided the questions of fact by taking into consideration the evidence adduced during enquiry, and once they have been determined/decided by the Commissioner, the same are regarded as “findings of fact”. 9. In those circumstances, though an appeal is provided under Section 30 of the Act against the order of the Commissioner, the appeal provision is not to question the findings of fact or to raise the already decided questions of fact. The appeal provision is only for seeking adjudication of substantial question of law, if any, that emanates in a given case. 10. Having considered the respective submissions, and having considered the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, and on a perusal of Section 30 of the Act, and also the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation case, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of substantial question of law. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.