JUDGMENT : (Nupur Bhati, J.) : 1. The appellants/claimants have preferred the instant misc. appeal under Section 30 (A) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (‘Act pf 1923’) for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Workman Compensation Commissioner, Bhilwara vide its judgment and award dated 24.08.2015 passed in Claim Case No.ECA/F-110/2012, whereby the Commissioner has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,19,840/-in favour of claimants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 05.11.2010 and imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the non-claimant No.1. 2. Before considering the appeal on merits, it is necessary to look into the scope of interference by the High Court in the appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923. It is no more res integra that such appeal 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 of 1923 with a further rider contained in Proviso-I of Section that the appeal must involve substantial question(s) of law. The position of law is well settled that the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 to the High Court, against the order of Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to the first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The regular civil first appeal under Section 96 of CPC can be heard both on facts and law whereas the scope of appellate court to decide the appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 is confined only to examine the substantial question(s) of law arising in the case. It is therefore, clear that the High Court is first required to find out as to whether the present appeal involves any substantial question(s) of law or not? If the substantial question(s) of law arises, the appeal may be admitted for final hearing on merits else the same is liable to be dismissed with reasons that it does not involve any substantial question(s) of law. 3. Now coming to the appeal at hand, the appellants/claimants have suggested following questions of law for consideration by this Court:- 1. If the substantial question(s) of law arises, the appeal may be admitted for final hearing on merits else the same is liable to be dismissed with reasons that it does not involve any substantial question(s) of law. 3. Now coming to the appeal at hand, the appellants/claimants have suggested following questions of law for consideration by this Court:- 1. Whether the respondent No.1 cannot be fastened with liability to the tune of 50% of the compensation awarded for not paying even a single penny towards compensation even after lapse of period of almost five years? 2. Whether the learned court below ought not to have taken Rs.8000/-per month as salary of the deceased as provided to be minimum wages of a driver w.e.f. June, 2010 in Workmen Compensation Act? 3. Whether the rate of interest cannot be increased/enhanced on the compensation considering the fact of demise of a man of just 29 years of age as well as lapse of period for deciding the claim of the claimants.? 4. Whether the learned court below would not have awarded compensation towards loss of love and affection and mental agony suffered by the appellants? 4. In order to examine as to whether the aforesaid questions are essentially questions of fact or can be considered as substantial question(s) of law, it is necessary to consider the facts of case in brief and the findings recorded by the Commissioner. 5. This is a case where claimants filed claim petition under Section 10 read with Section 22 of the Act of 1923 for compensation on account of death of the bread earner of their family namely, Shri Kailash Regar (deceased herein) who died on 05.10.2010 while working with his employer, non-claimant No.1/respondent No.1 herein. In the claim petition, the claimants alleged that that deceased Sh. Kailash Regar was employed as a driver on the tractor bearing registration number RJ-06-1R-0863 in the employment of non-claimant No.1. On 05.10.2010 in the evening at 04:30 – 05:00 pm, when the deceased was plying the said tractor, its right side tyre got blast, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and during treatment, he expired. At the time of accident, the deceased was 29 years of age and he was earning Rs.9000/-as salary from his employer/non-claimant No.1. At the time of accident, the tractor was insured with non-claimant No.2. At the time of accident, the deceased was 29 years of age and he was earning Rs.9000/-as salary from his employer/non-claimant No.1. At the time of accident, the tractor was insured with non-claimant No.2. The claimants though laid a claim, however, the non-claimants instead of paying compensation to the claimants fastened the liability upon each other. The information of the accident was given by the non-claimant No.1 to the non-claimant No.2 on the date of accident itself. The claimants thus filed claim petition claiming compensation along with interest @ 18% p.a. 6. After registration of the claim, notices were issued to the non-claimants. On behalf of non-claimant No.1 i.e. employer, reply to claim petition was filed while admitting the fact that during the course of employment, Sh. Kailash Regar died while plying the tractor, and that he was getting salary of Rs.9000/-per month. It was further alleged that the vehicle was insured with the non-claimant No.2 and the insurance company was apprised of the incident alongwith requisite details, and therefore, the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation and penalty as well. 7. On behalf of non-claimant No.2 i.e. insurance company reply to claim petition was filed while admitting the fact that at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with it, however, denied other facts alleged in the claim petition. An objection with regard to driver of the vehicle not having valid and effective licence was raised by the non-claimant No.2.It was also alleged in the reply that information of the accident was not provided by the non-claimant No.1 to the insurance company, therefore, on account of violation of the conditions of the policy, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation, if any. It was prayed that the claim petition against the insurance company be rejected. 8. It was prayed that the claim petition against the insurance company be rejected. 8. As per the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner, framed six issues including relief, which are reproduced as under: ^^1- D;k e`rd dh e`R;q vizkFkhZ la[;k&1 ds fu;kstu o funsZ'ku esa dk;Z ds nkSjku ?kfVr nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ds QyLo:i gqbZ Fkh\ 2- oDr nq?kZVuk e`rd dh vk;q o osru D;k Fkk\ 3- D;k chek ikWfylh dh 'krksZa dk mYya?ku gqvk gS rFkk bldk chdk dEiuh ds {kfriwfrZ o C;kt vnk;xh ds nkf;Ro ij D;k izHkko gksxk\ 4- D;k oDr nq?kZVuk fu;ekuqlkj dsoy izkFkhZx.k gh e`rd ds vkfJr Fks\ 5- D;k vizkFkhZ la[;k&1 izkFkhZx.k dks fof/k }kjk fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa {kfriwfrZ dk Hkqxrku ugha dj ikus ij 'kkfLr gsrq mRrjnk;h gS\ 6- vuqrks"k\ 9. In support of their claim, claimants examined AW.1 Heera Regar as AW, upon which she was cross-examined by the non-claimants. During the course of trial, the claimants exhibited documents viz. FIR (Ex.1), Tehrir FIR (Ex.2), Final Report (Ex.3), Site Map (Ex.4), postmortem report (Ex.5) and various documents were exhibited. In documentary evidence, non-claimant exhibited statement of Heera (AW.1) as Ex. D/1. 10. The Commissioner thereafter heard the arguments of the parties and after considering the material placed before, it vide judgment and award impugned dated 24.08.2015 proceeded to partly allow the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.4,19,840/-along with interest @ 12% per annum and the liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the appellant insurance company. The Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- upon the non-claimant No.1/employer. 11. Aggrieved by judgment and award dated 24.08.2015 insofar as meager compensation has been awarded, the appellants/claimants have preferred the instant misc. appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 12. The instant misc. appeal was admitted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2020. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner has erred in considering the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.4000/-only, whereas the claimants in their claim petition contended that the deceased was earning Rs.9000/-per month and the said fact has been admitted by the non-claimant No.1 i.e. employer in his reply. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that even otherwise, the minimum wages @ Rs.8000/-per month ought to have been taken into consideration by the Commissioner, which was prevalent at the time of accident. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that even otherwise, the minimum wages @ Rs.8000/-per month ought to have been taken into consideration by the Commissioner, which was prevalent at the time of accident. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the interest awarded by the Commissioner @ 12% p.a. is on lower side and the same ought to have been 18% p.a. looking to the age of the deceased, who was 29 years of age at the time of accident. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/non-claimants submit that all the questions are related to question of facts and may not be treated as substantial question(s) of law. 15. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record. 16. So far as the substantial question of law (1), referred to supra, is concerned, the Commissioner while awarding the compensation in favour of claimants, has held both the non-claimants i.e. employer and the insurer jointly and severally liable, therefore, the said question as suggested, cannot be termed as a substantial question of law. The second question of law suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Commissioner ought to have taken into consideration the monthly salary @ Rs.8000/-is concerned, this Court finds that the Commissioner has specifically recorded the finding that the claimants failed to place any substantial piece of evidence demonstrating the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.8000/-or the said sum was the minimum wages at the relevant point of time, and therefore, in view of this Court, the Commissioner has rightly considered the minimum wages at Rs.4000/-while awarding compensation in favour of claimants. Thus, the compensation awarded at Rs. 4,19,840/-under the head of loss of income/dependency is just and proper and the same calls for no interference. 17. The third question of law as suggested by the appellants is that the interest deserves to be enhanced. In the opinion of this Court, the interest awarded by the Commissioner @ 12% p.a. is adequate one, therefore, no enhancement looking to the age of the deceased and time spent in deciding the claim petition, could not be awarded to the appellants/claimants. 18. This Court has also considered the fourth question of law that the claimants ought to have been awarded compensation towards loss of love and affection & mental agony. 18. This Court has also considered the fourth question of law that the claimants ought to have been awarded compensation towards loss of love and affection & mental agony. In the opinion of this Court, this was a claim petition filed under the provisions of the Act of 1923 and not under the provisions of M.V. Act, therefore, the Commissioner has not awarded any amount under the aforesaid head. 19. Thus, after elaborate discussion on facts and proposition of law, the questions do not fall within the scope of substantial question of law. In this backdrop, this question of law may also not be treated as substantial question of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Golla Rajanna Etc. v. The Divisional Manager & Anr. : 2017 (1) SCC 45 considered the scope of interference by the High Court in the findings of the Commissioner Workman Compensation, under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 and held as under:- "Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act." 20. None of the questions as raised and suggested by the counsel for appellants fall within the ambit and purview of substantial question of law. All these questions are essentially the question of facts and require, re-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence. As far as factual issues are concerned, it is clear proposition of law that the jurisdiction to appreciate the pleadings and evidence on record and to deliver findings thereupon lies with the Commissioner. The finding of facts as recorded by the Commissioner are treated as final as the Commissioner is the last authority to record findings on facts. The High Court, while exercising its powers and jurisdiction as appellate court under Section 30 of Act of 1923 may not and should not re-appreciate the evidence and pleadings to substitute the factual findings of the Commissioner, by its own view. The High Court, while exercising its powers and jurisdiction as appellate court under Section 30 of Act of 1923 may not and should not re-appreciate the evidence and pleadings to substitute the factual findings of the Commissioner, by its own view. Unless and until the findings recorded by the Commissioner, do not raise any substantial question of law, the same are not required to be interfered with. The compensation awarded by Commissioner is adequate and no interference is called for in the judgment and award impugned. 21. The upshot of discussion made hereinabove, is that the present appeal does not qualify the requirement of involving any substantial question of law, which is mandatory requirement under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 to entertain the appeal. 22. Accordingly, the appeal has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.