JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act of 1923') against the judgment and award dt.5.10.2018 passed by Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Sikar in claim case No. W.C.C./F-93/2012 whereby an amount of Rs.7,30,480/- has been awarded in favour of the respondent-claimant (for short' the claimant') against non-claimant-respondent No. 1 and 2 alongwith interest 12% per annum from the date of alleged incident. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner wrongly awarded the compensation. He also submits that the Commissioner miserably failed to consider that no rojnamcha, PMR or any other public document was produced by the claimants to prove the involvement of the alleged vehicle in the accident. He also submits that claimants falsely implicated the alleged vehicle to get the amount of compensation. He further submits that there is no evidence to establish the relationship of the employer and employee between the deceased and the insured. He also submits that claimants failed to prove that deceased was engaged as a driver of the insured vehicle. He further submits that appellant had adduced evidence of (NAW-1- Gautam) who exhibited the record (Ex.NA-1) which clearly shows that no accident took place on the alleged date. Deceased died due to heart attack for getting the amount, a concocted story was prepared by claimants. So, award of the Commissioner be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore Thermal Station and anr. reported in 2006 ACJ 2165 and Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and anr. in appeal (civil) No. 4778/2006 decided on 10.11.2006. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the Commissioner had perused the documents available on record and finding given by the Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of evidence and the same is not liable to be disturbed by this court. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Golla Rajanna Etc. v. The Divisional Manager and anr. reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 wherein Para No. 8 and 10 it was held that: “8. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Golla Rajanna Etc. v. The Divisional Manager and anr. reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 wherein Para No. 8 and 10 it was held that: “8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeal 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 lumpsum 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 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 (Emphasis supplied) 10. Under the schment of the Act, the workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to appeal akin to section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can he 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.” 6. The similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “ North East Karnatka Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha” reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 . It has specifically held in Para Nos. 9 to 12 as under: “9. The similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “ North East Karnatka Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha” reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 . It has specifically held in Para Nos. 9 to 12 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 dependants 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 lies only against the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the first proviso to the section that the appeal must involve substantial questions 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 he 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.” 7. 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.” 7. In “Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi v. Chhatra Devi”, reported in JT 2005 (6) SC 167, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that without formulating substantial question of law appeal cannot be sustained. 8. In “M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer v. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi wide of Mool Chand and Anr.”, reported in 1985(1) WLN455, this Court while dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act has laid down law that unless there is an question of public importance and there is no final interpretation available while the substantial question of law is arising, the appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be entertained. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: “8. Moreover, under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act only substantial question of lawcan be agitated. In the present case, I am convinced that there is no substantial question of law involved. 9. The question of public importance and question on which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial question of law. Even if this definition is further extended, it will have to bear in mind that there is vast difference between the question of law and substantial question of law. It is only when the question of law is not well settled and it is of importance, it would become a substantial questions of law.” 9. It is the settled position of law that limited jurisdiction has been given to the High Court confined to the substantial question of law only and the High Court cannot venture and re-appreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by both the parties. 10. This Court finds no good ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law. This Court accordingly uphold these findings. 11. Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed. 12. All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.