JUDGEMENT : PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, J. 1. The appellant Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd has preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) assailing the award dated 22.5.2017 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District-II, Jaipur in Claim Case No. ECCF 39/2010 whereby death compensation was awarded to respondent No.1, directing the appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs. 4,19,840/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 11.9.2009 till realisation. 2. Brief facts, as apparent from the record, are that claimant/respondent Smt. Mohari Devi filed a claim petition under “the Act” claiming compensation on account of death of his son Sharwanlal. As per the averments deceased Sharwanlal was working as a Driver of Vehicle No. RJ-14-GB-8298 in the employment of non-claimant/respondent Ram Karan Yadav. On 11.8.2009, the said vehicle was carrying goods from Udaipur to Neemrana. At Pooja Hotel near Chandwaji, above truck collided with another truck from behind and Sharwanlal sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The death occurred during the course of employment. The above truck was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. 3. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased Sharwanlal was not employed with the non-claimant respondent Ramkaran. Admittedly, the deceased and owner of the truck were real brothers and in no manner, deceased was under the employment of his real brother. It can be said that Shrawnlal was non paid driver which would not fall within the category of paid driver. The learned Commissioner has not applied its judicial mind as there was no question of relationship of employer and employee and death was not occurred during and arising out of course of employment, therefore, the award passed by the learned Commissioner is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for claimant respondent refuted the submissions made on behalf of the appellant by contending that the employer-employee relationship between the deceased was duly proved and mere close relationship with the employer and employee does not disentitle the employee from claiming compensation under “the Act”. He further submits that the present appeal is not maintainable as per provisions of Section 30 of the Act unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. He further submits that the present appeal is not maintainable as per provisions of Section 30 of the Act unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Hence, on factual aspect, the appeal is not maintainable. 6. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 7. At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that in terms of Section 30 of the Act a challenge to the order of Commissioner can be made only on substantial question of law. In this regard, the Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha reported as (2019) 11 SCC 514 has held the scope of an appeal under Section 30 of the Act to be limited to substantial questions of law, and that findings of facts proved either way are not to be likely interfered with. Relevant excerpt from the decision is reproduced hereunder:- "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 dependents 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 afore-mentioned 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. 10. The afore-mentioned 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 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." 8. The same view has been voiced by the Supreme Court in Golla Rajanna and ors. Vs. The Divisional Manager and ors., 2017 ACJ 1 wherein it has been held has under: “9. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows: 30. The same view has been voiced by the Supreme Court in Golla Rajanna and ors. Vs. The Divisional Manager and ors., 2017 ACJ 1 wherein it has been held has under: “9. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals 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 lump sum 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…... 11. 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.” 9. Again in the case of Shahajahan and another vs. Shriram General Ins. Co. ltd. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court Under Section 30 of the Act.” 9. Again in the case of Shahajahan and another vs. Shriram General Ins. Co. ltd. And another , reported in 2022 ACJ 203 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “High Court should not have interfered with the award passed by the Commissioner as the appeal before the High Court is maintainable only on the substantial question of law”. 10. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mayan Vs. Mustafa & ors., reported in 2022 ACJ 1624 by stating that “An appeal against the said award was maintainable only on substantial question of law in terms of Section 30 of “the Act”. 11. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, it appears that the appeal in hand does not involve any substantial question of law. The Commissioner has 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. 12. It is not disputed that the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased Sharwanlal was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. It is also not disputed that the insurance policy in question was valid and subsisting on the date of accident. 13. In the light of the above discussions, in absence of any substantial question of law, the appellant having failed to make out any case for interference, therefore, the impugned order is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed along with pending application, if any. 14. Let the amount of compensation deposited by the appellant with the learned Commissioner along with any interest accrued thereupon be released to the claimant forthwith.