JUDGMENT Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. Heard Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Ms.S.R. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. None appears for the employer. 2. By way of this appeal, United India Insurance Company Ltd. has challenged the judgment and award dated 8.9.2005 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Saharanpur in WCA No.10 of 2004 awarding compensation of Rs.2,87,209/- (with interest) to the claimants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the certificate shows that the disability is only 17% and there is amputation of three flanges of the upper limb but the Tribunal has considered the injury to be causing 100% disability, which could not have been done. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this a pure question of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the cases of Mayan v. Mustafa and another, 2022 ACJ 524 and Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 0 ACJ 141 . 5. On perusal memo of appeal, this Court finds that following substantial questions of law has been framed: "(a) Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in over-looking the fact that on fateful day the claimant injured was absent from the duty, even though awarded compensation for his injuries? (b) Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in awarding more compensation, than it was claimed by the claimant itself? (c) Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in awarding interest against the appellant-Insurance Co. against the principle laid down by the Apex Court? (d) Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in fixing the liability upon the appellant-Insurance Co. without the owner having been declared as insolvent as required under Section 14 of the Act? (e) Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in awarding 100% compensation as against the disability certificate of only 17%?" 6. At the outset, it is relevant to discuss the scope of this Court to entertain appeal against the award of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 has held as under : "9. At the outset, it is relevant to discuss the scope of this Court to entertain appeal against the award of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 has 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 dependent of the deceased 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 findings of fact." 7. The Apex Court further went on to hold as under : "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. 16. Now coming to the facts of this case, we find that the appeal before the High Court did not involve any substantial question of law on the material questions set out above. 16. Now coming to the facts of this case, we find that the appeal before the High Court did not involve any substantial question of law on the material questions set out above. In other words, in our view, the Commissioner decided all the material questions arising in the case properly on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and rightly determined the compensation payable to the respondent. It was, therefore, rightly affirmed by the High Court on facts. 17. In this view of the matter, the findings being concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below are binding on this Court. Even otherwise, we find 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. We accordingly uphold these findings." 8. As far as present appeal is concerned, the so called substantial questions of law framed are the questions of facts and the findings of the Commissioner on the said issues are not perverse. As far as interest is concerned, the same is answered against the Insurance Company in view of the decision of the Apex Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Case (Supra). In Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. v. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) also it has been held that under Section 30, the High Court cannot enter into the arena of facts unless they are proved to be perverse. 9. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The so called questions of law framed by the Insurance Company are answered against it. In fact the substantial questions of law raised are the questions of fact. 10. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. The amount be disbursed to the claimant forthwith.