JUDGMENT : (Nupur Bhati, J.) : 1. The appellant/non-claimant No.2 United India Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred the instant misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 (‘Act pf 1923’) challenging the validity of judgment and award dated 05.12.2014 passed by learned Workman Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur in Claim Case No.04/2011, whereby the Commissioner has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,29,925/- in favour of claimants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 12.04.2011 and imposed penalty of Rs.98,977/- 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 30 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 Insurance Company has 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 Insurance Company has suggested following questions of law for consideration by this Court:- 1. Whether insurance company can be fastened with the liability to satisfy the award despite of the fact that insurance policy was issued for the site Navratna Complex, Near Jyoti School, Bhuvana District Udaipur whereas according to the documents accident is occurred on another place i.e. Crystal Complex for which there was no insurance policy was issued by the insured? 2. Whether accident has occurred during the course of employment and arising out of employment whereas according to the FIR after the duty hours deceased was coming to purchase the vegetable for the dinner? From the documents available on record it is clear that accident has not occurred during the course and under the employment? 3. Whether there was any casual connection between the accident and the employment? 4. Whether Employees Compensation Commissioner can pass award by overlooking the objection taken by the parties and without framing any issue on the objections? 5. Whether insurance company can be saddled with the interest on the compensation despite of the fact that there is no contract to this effect? 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 3 read with Section 22 of the Act of 1923 for compensation on account of death of the bread earner of their family namely, Shri Devendra Singh (deceased herein) who died on 04.07.2011 while working with his employer, non-claimant No.1/respondent No.5 herein. In the claim petition, the claimants alleged that that late Sh. Devendra Singh on 12.03.2011 while working in the employment of non-claimant No.1/respondent No.5, slipped from first floor at a multi complex which was being constructed by non-claimant No.1-M/s Kamal Engineering and Contractor Pvt. Ltd. and on account of injuries sustained, he died. Late Sh. In the claim petition, the claimants alleged that that late Sh. Devendra Singh on 12.03.2011 while working in the employment of non-claimant No.1/respondent No.5, slipped from first floor at a multi complex which was being constructed by non-claimant No.1-M/s Kamal Engineering and Contractor Pvt. Ltd. and on account of injuries sustained, he died. Late Sh. Devendra Singh was employed as labourer and he died during the course of employment. The claimants further alleged that at the time of death, Sh. Devendra Singh was 23 years of age and he was earning Rs.3,000/-per month and he was in the employment of the employer for last five years. Deceased was in employment of the non-claimant No.1 as full time employee i.e. he was serving 24 hours and he was doing the work of marble fitting. Despite apprising about the incident, the non-claimants did not deposit the compensation in the court, therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition claiming compensation to tune of Rs.6,59,850/-along with interest and penalty from the non-claimants. 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 on 15.09.2011 while admitting the fact that during the course of employment, Sh. Devendra Singh died while working in the multi complex and that he was getting Rs.3000/-per month. It was further alleged that 60 labourers were insured with the non-claimant No.2 insurance company from 07.09.2010 to 06.09.2011 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. appellant insurance company reply to claim petition was filed on 24.11.2011 while denying the facts alleged in respect to construction on the insured site, deceased being in employment of non-claimant No.1, death of deceased on account of incident, age and salary of the deceased. The non-claimant No.2 also disputed that the information of the incident was not provided by the non-claimant, therefore, it was not liable to pay the compensation. It was thus prayed that the claim petition be rejected. 8. In support of their claim, claimant No.1, Smt. Rajni filed her affidavit, upon which she was cross-examined by the non-claimants. During the course of trial, the claimants exhibited documents viz. It was thus prayed that the claim petition be rejected. 8. In support of their claim, claimant No.1, Smt. Rajni filed her affidavit, upon which she was cross-examined by the non-claimants. During the course of trial, the claimants exhibited documents viz. investigation conducted by the police, postmortem report and other documents, which were exhibited as Ex.1 to Ex.4. On behalf of non-claimant No.1, affidavit of one Sh. Dinesh Chittora was filed, and he was cross-examined by non-claimant No.2. In documentary evidence, non-claimant exhibited attendance register as Ex.NA/1. On behalf of non-claimant No.2, Sh. Suresh Vallabh Dave’s affidavit was filed and he was cross-examined. In documentary evidence, on behalf of non-claimant No.2, documents were exhibited. 9. The Commissioner thereafter heard the arguments of the parties and after considering the material placed before, it vide judgment and award impugned dated 05.12.2014 proceeded to partly allow the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.3,29,925/-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.98,977/- upon the non-claimant No.1/employer. 10. Aggrieved by judgment and award dated 05.12.2014, the appellant/non-claimant No.2 has preferred the instant misc. appeal. 11. The instant misc. appeal was admitted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2016 and the stay application was rejected. The amount of compensation was directed to be deposited by the appellant and upon the same being deposited, the compensation amount was ordered to be disbursed to the claimants, subject to their furnishing undertaking that in case the appeal filed the appellant is allowed, they will refund back the said sum with interest @ 6% per annum. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident occurred during the course and arising out of employment. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the ‘Marg’ report, the deceased was going to buy vegetable at around 08:30 pm i.e. after his duty hour was over, inasmuch as the deceased used to work from 08:30 am to 05:30 pm in normal working days. Learned counsel for the appellant thus submits that the deceased did not die while he was working on the site in question during course of and out of employment of the non-claimant No.1. Learned counsel for the appellant thus submits that the deceased did not die while he was working on the site in question during course of and out of employment of the non-claimant No.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite a specific objection raised by the appellant in this regard, the Commissioner has not framed any issue in this regard and, therefore, judgment impugned is contrary to material available on record and law. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in fact the accident occurred at Grace Crystal Complex in Magri Bhuvana, whereas the policy was issued for the site viz. Navratna Complex near Jyoti School. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that policy was issued for a particular site for particular number of employees, however, the Commissioner has not considered this aspect of the matter and has erred in observing that Grace Crystal Complex was part of the insured site and thus the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant while referring to Section 3 of the Act of 1923 submits that claimants have to prove that there was casual connection between the accident and employment. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of accident, the deceased was not doing any job of the employer and in fact at the time of accident, he was doing some personal work. He further submits that according to Section 3 of the Act of 1923, death must have occurred during the course of employment, however, in the instant case, workman fell from height while he was coming to purchase vegetable. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, argued that there was no casual connection between the employment and death/incident. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant further questioned the interest awarded @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 12.04.2011 and levying of such higher interest on the appellant is absolutely contrary to the contract between the insurer and the insured. Learned counsel for the appellant thus prayed that the instant appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award bet set aside. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that all the questions are related to question of facts and may not be treated as substantial question(s) of law. 16. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record. 17. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that all the questions are related to question of facts and may not be treated as substantial question(s) of law. 16. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record. 17. The substantial question of law (1), referred to supra, is whether the insurance can be held liable to satisfy the award despite the fact that insurance policy was issued for the site Navratna Complex, Near Jyoti School, Bhuvana District Udaipur whereas according to the documents accident is occurred on another place i.e. Crystal Complex for which there was no insurance policy was issued by the insured. This Court finds that the Commissioner has considered the testimony of witness produced by the non-claimant No.1/employer that “Navratna Complex” is the entire area, wherein in all 50 buildings were being constructed by the non-claimant No.1 and ‘Crystal Complex’ was one of such building, which was being constructed by the non-claimant No.1 and therefore, the issue sought to be raised by the appellant/non-claimant No.2 that the site in question was not covered under the insurance policy, has rightly been negated by the Commissioner. So far as question No.2 is concerned, this Court finds that the in the claim petition, the claimants have contended that on the date of incident i.e. 12.03.2011, the deceased while working on the site for non-claimant No.1 slipped from the first floor of the under construction building and owing to the injuries, he died. This Court finds that non-claimant No.1 in the reply as also in its evidence has admitted that the deceased was in its employment and died while working on the site. This Court also finds that the Commissioner has considered the documents pertaining to the investigation carried out by the police (Ex.1 and 2) and the postmortem report (Ex.3) and has rightly concluded that the accident occurred during the course of employment on 12.03.2011. This Court finds that after considering the evidence produced before the Commissioner, the Commissioner has rightly held that the incident occurred during the course of employment and there was casual connection between the accident and the employment. 18. This Court finds that after considering the evidence produced before the Commissioner, the Commissioner has rightly held that the incident occurred during the course of employment and there was casual connection between the accident and the employment. 18. Insofar as question of law No.4 is concerned, this Court finds that the Commissioner has considered the evidence led by the respective parties minutely and even if no specific issues(s) were framed, the same cannot be valid question, inasmuch as the objections raised by the appellant/non-claimant No.2 have been dealt with by the Commissioner. The question No.5 sought to be raised that whether the insurance company can be held liable to pay the compensation is concerned, this Court finds that 60 labourer(s) were insured for the site in question and, therefore, the Commissioner has not committed any error in saddling the liability of paying interest on the compensation. 19. The Employee's Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at alleviating the sufferings of the workman, who suffers injuries resulting disability or the sufferings of the legal heirs of the workman who dies in such accident. It is settled law that unless the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner, are not shown to be perverse, the same are not required to be interfered with in the appeal. Any erroneous finding or any error of law cannot be the basis for entertaining an appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 unless such erroneous findings do not give rise to substantial question of law. As far as findings recorded by the Commissioner are based on the material available on record and such findings cannot be held to be perverse by any stretch of imagination. In the case of Krishna Weaving Mills Vs. Chandra Bhaga Devi : 1985(1) WLN 455 ], a Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the appeal under Section 30 of Workman Compensation Act, 1973 has drawn a distinction between the question of law and substantial question of law. It was held that the question of public importance and question of which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial question of law. If a question of law is not well settled and the same is of public importance, it may be treated as a substantial question of law. It was held that the question of public importance and question of which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial question of law. If a question of law is not well settled and the same is of public importance, it may be treated as a substantial question of law. The view has been followed in subsequent judgment delivered by this Court in case of Khuma vs. Shyam Lal : MANU/RH/1287/2019. The scope of interference under Section 30 of the Act of 1923, on the ground of perversity in the findings of Commissioner, was also considered by the High Court of Gauhati in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gita Rani Roy : MANU/GH/0608/2015 decided on 16.09.2015. 20. 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. 21. 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." 22. 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." 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Versus Sujatha : 2019 (11) SCC 514 ] has again held in clear and explicit words 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. 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. 23. None of the questions as raised and suggested by the counsel for Insurance Company 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. 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. 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. 24. 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. Accordingly, the appeal has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.