JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 by the insurer of the vehicle against award dated 19.4.2008 made by the Commissioner under the Act in Claim Case No. WCCF 64/2006 whereby an award of Rs. 4,33,820/-along with interest was made in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The background of this case is that one Ramesh Chandra S/o Palaram died in a motor accident on 24.04.2002. At the time of accident, the deceased was driving a truck bearing Registration No. HR 10 GA-1033 owned by respondent Mahendra Singh. The truck turned turtle as the driver lost balance. Another driver of the Truck who was sleeping in the truck itself survived. This driver Rampal lodged FIR No. 223/2002 with Kotputli Police Station on the date of accident itself narrating the manner of incident. Initially, one Mangali along with her three daughters brought case for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act vide Motor Accident Claim Case No. 689/2005. The Tribunal was of the view that since the victim was himself negligent, no award can be made under Section 163-A of the Act, rather the dependents would be at liberty to move the appropriate forum under the Workmen Compensation Act. Accordingly, the Workmen Compensation Case aforesaid was brought by the respondents and the Commissioner made the award as referred above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Virendra Agrawal contends that substantial question of law involved in this appeal is whether the award obtained from the Commissioner was result of fraud played upon the Court and if the answer is in positive, the whole award would get vitiated. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors. etc., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 581 . 4. Contention of the appellant is that Palaram and Iser were full brothers. Deceased Ramesh Chandra was son of Palaram whereas late Mangali was wife of Iser and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Suman, Reena and Gaugi are daughters of Iser and they falsely claimed that Mangali was widow of Palaram and the three respondents were daughters of Palaram. Mangali died on 08.01.2007 during pendency of the proceeding before the Commissioner. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 to 3 Ms. 1 to 3 Suman, Reena and Gaugi are daughters of Iser and they falsely claimed that Mangali was widow of Palaram and the three respondents were daughters of Palaram. Mangali died on 08.01.2007 during pendency of the proceeding before the Commissioner. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 to 3 Ms. Vartika Mehra contends that in fact, Mangali was mother of the deceased and three respondents are siblings of the deceased. Palaram is already dead. This issue was raised by the appellant before the Commissioner in their written statement and the Commissioner decided the issue on 28.12.2007 itself against the appellant and thereafter award was made on 19.4.2008. The learned Commissioner considered that late Mangali during her lifetime, during pendency of the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had deposed that she was wife of Palaram. She was not confronted by the appellant. The Commissioner further considered that the death certificate on the basis whereof the appellants claimed that Mangali was wife of Iser was dated 13.1.2007 and on that very basis, it cannot be said that Mangali was wife of Iser. The Commissioner further considered that Iser appeared before the Commissioner and admitted in his affidavit that Mangali was wife of Palaram and not his wife and three daughters who are respondents herein were daughters of Pala Ram and after death of Palaram, Iser is their guardian. The Commissioner held that the three respondents are full sisters of the deceased. 6. Though the aforesaid order was not challenged separately, however learned counsel for the appellants rightly asserts that he can challenge in this appeal any order passed during original proceedings in view of provisions of Section 105 CPC. 7. Thus, the evidence in favour of the fact that Mangali was wife of Palaram is statement of Mangali in the motor accident case in respect of same accident vide Ex. NA2/3. Mangali had sworn separate affidavit in the said motor accident claims case No. 244/2003. The second evidence is statement of Iser on oath dated 28.03.2007 which supports that Mangali was wife of Palaram and respondents are daughters of Palaram. One of the respondents Suman gave her evidence on oath before the Commissioner on 28.2.2007 stating therein that she and her sisters are daughters of Palaram. The second evidence is statement of Iser on oath dated 28.03.2007 which supports that Mangali was wife of Palaram and respondents are daughters of Palaram. One of the respondents Suman gave her evidence on oath before the Commissioner on 28.2.2007 stating therein that she and her sisters are daughters of Palaram. There is ration card issued by the Haryana Government on 1.9.2005 genuineness whereof is not disputed which shows that Mangali was wife of Palaram. 8. The insurer appellant had conducted confidential inquiry for verification of the death certificate of Mangali and in that inquiry it was reported that Mangali was wife of Iser. That report is dated 13.10.2007 after death of Mangli. 9. Thus, it is evident that before the Commissioner, it was disputed question of fact whether the claimants were mother and sisters of deceased or they were distant cousins as such not dependents on the deceased. On consideration of the rival evidence produced, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the claimants were dependents of the deceased, therefore, it cannot be argued by any stretch of imagination that the aforesaid question is a substantial question of law involved in this appeal, therefore, this appeal is itself not maintainable in view of requirement of Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act. In North East Karnataka Road Transport Vs. Sujata reported in (2019) 11 SCC 514 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated as follows: “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. 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. 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.” 10. Recently in Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 4713/2023 decided on 04.09.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of jurisdiction of an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act. 11. The case of Rajendra Singh (supra) is distinguishable for the reason that in Rajendra Singh’s case two claimants who were father and son claimed that they had met with an accident caused by the Ambassador Car. The Tribunal awarded compensation. Later on, the insurer obtained photocopy of a report prepared by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Subzi Mandi, Police Station submitted on 9.11.1993 in which it was stated that the two injured had sustained injuries in different circumstances and at a different place while they were operating their own tractor. On this new fact, the award was challenged and the Supreme Court stated that since fraud avoids all judicial acts, the award made in favour of claimants was fit to be declared nullity as it was obtained by fraud. The present one is not a case of that nature. Rather a disputed question of fact whether the claimants were/are dependents of the deceased was properly raised and decided by the Commissioner and conclusion of the Commissioner is based on the evidence on record, therefore, this Court cannot entered into re-appreciation of evidence to come to a different probable conclusion. 12. From the discussion made above, since no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, it stands dismissed however without any order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.