JUDGMENT : The present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, assailing the order dated 12.02.2010 passed in W.C.No.38 of 2007 on the file of the learned Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupathi. 2. The brief averments of the claim application are as follows: The respondents/applicants 1 and 2 herein filed W.C. No.38 of 2007 claiming compensation of Rs.4,42,740/- along with interest for the death of one K.Muneendra, who worked as Cleaner in lorry tanker No.ABC 0226 of respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) and the appellant herein is the insurer of the said vehicle. His duty was to fill water to the lorry tanker from the water tank. On 22.02.2006, when the deceased was cooking his food in the house, which was situated beside and beneath the water tank of respondent No.3 along with another person by name S.Ramu, the water tanker collapsed and fell on the roof of the house causing death of the deceased and S.Ramu. A case was registered in Crime No.17 of 2006. The deceased was aged about 22 years and was getting wages at Rs.4,000/- p.m. on the date of accident. Since, he died due to personal injuries received in an accident during the course of his employment on 22.02.2006, the appellant and the respondents 3 and 4, being the insurer, owner and contractor of the said vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 3. Counter was filed by the 3rd respondent-owner of the vehicle before the Court below disputing the averments made in the petition. It is stated that there is a valid insurance coverage to his lorry tanker with the appellant-insurer and the deceased never worked under him in any capacity much less as a Cleaner or Driver of his water tanker. It is further stated that the present case will not come under the purview of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’). Hence, he requested to dismiss the petition against him. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company also filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the claim application stating that the compensation claimed by the respondents 1 and 2 is highly excessive and without any basis. Hence, he requested to dismiss the petition against him. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company also filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the claim application stating that the compensation claimed by the respondents 1 and 2 is highly excessive and without any basis. It is further stated that due to more capacity of water in the tank, the walls of tank got cracks and fell on the cement sheet shed, as a result of which, the deceased received fatal injuries and died on the spot. The said accident occurred only due to negligence of the 4th respondent. As such, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition against it. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed by the Court below:- 1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to personal injuries he received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment or not? 2. Amount of compensation payable to the applicants? 3. Who are liable to pay compensation? 6. In support of the case, the 1st respondent herein examined AW.1 apart from AWs.2 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 while the respondents examined RWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.B1. 7. Considering the evidence and material, the Court below took into consideration the age of the deceased as 22 years at the time of accident basing on the Post Mortem Report and minimum wages as per public motor transport vide G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 27-07-2000 was fixed at Rs.1,437/- besides VDA of Rs.1039/-, totaling to Rs.2,476/- for a cleaner and arrived at compensation of Rs.2,74,056/- besides stamp duty of Rs.549/- totaling Rs.2,74,605/- payable by respondent No.3 and the appellant herein being the owner and insurer of the vehicle in question. 8. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, basing on the grounds mentioned in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal. Some of the grounds are as follows: 1. The Commissioner ought to have held that there is no liability on the opposite party No.3 when the opposite party No.1 employer categorically deposed that the deceased was not employed by him at any time and that the death did not take place within the course of and out of the employment. 2. The Commissioner ought to have held that there is no liability on the opposite party No.3 when the opposite party No.1 employer categorically deposed that the deceased was not employed by him at any time and that the death did not take place within the course of and out of the employment. 2. The Commissioner ought to have seen that as per law laid down, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation as the vehicle insured is not involved in any accident and death was not connected to the vehicle. 3. The Commissioner ought to have appreciated the fact that the deceased was not involved in any accident in the employment of opposite party No.1. 9. Heard Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. 10. Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterated the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. 11. Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, submitted that the appeal itself is not maintainable on the sole ground that no substantial question of law is being involved in the present appeal, which is mandatory as per Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. He further submitted that though the respondents 1 and 2 claimed a sum of Rs.4,42,740/-, the Court below awarded only Rs.2,74,605/- and the findings given by the Court below is legally valid and hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, reads as follows: 30. He further submitted that though the respondents 1 and 2 claimed a sum of Rs.4,42,740/-, the Court below awarded only Rs.2,74,605/- and the findings given by the Court below is legally valid and hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 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) 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 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: Provided, further, that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties: 2 Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against.] 1. Ins. by Act 8 of 1959, s. 15 (w. e. f. 1- 6- 1959 ). 2. Ins. by Act 15 of 1933, s. 17. (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. Ins. by Act 8 of 1959, s. 15 (w. e. f. 1- 6- 1959 ). 2. Ins. by Act 15 of 1933, s. 17. (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908 ), shall be applicable to appeals under this section. 13. A reading of Section 30 of the Act clearly establishes the fact that no substantial question of law has been raised by the appellant herein as contemplated under Section 30 of the Act. 14. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court is satisfied that there is no reason to admit the appeal as no questions of law much less of substantial nature are considered there to be and determined now. 15. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 12.02.2010 passed in W.C.No.38 of 2007 on the file of the Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupathi. As the appellant deposited the full amount before the Court below, the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest as on today by filing an application before the Court below. No costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.