JUDGMENT: NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. 1. The present C.M.A is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act , 1923 questioning the Order dated 11.11.2011 in W.C.No.28 of 2010 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The O.P.No.2-Insurance Company is the Appellant herein. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:- The Claimants are the daughters of late Poiba Neelamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). The deceased was working as a Labourer in the Goods Van bearing No.AP-05-U-0040 owned by O.P.No.1 and she was being paid Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day as a wage. While so, on 02.10.2006, while the deceased along with other labouers were going on the vehicle, in the course of employment, near Banangipittu Village, Kumada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, the said vehicle met with an accident, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. 4. A criminal case in Cr.No.49 of 2006 was registered by the S.H.O. Munchinput Police Station under Sections 304-A, 338 & 337 IPC against the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the Claimants filed the application seeking compensation of Rs.2,76,255/-. As the vehicle was insured with O.P.No.2-Insurance Company vide Policy No.151130/31/05/08198, which was valid from 16.11.2005 to 15.11.2006, O.P.No.2 arrayed as party-respondent. 5. O.P.No.1 remained absent and was set ex parte. The O.P.No.2 filed a short counter denying the claim contending that the claim application is vague for want of particulars of vehicle number nor details of insurance policy was provided. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:- 1) Whether the deceased is a workman under the provisions of W.C. Act and there exists employee-employer relation and death aroused out of an in the course of employment? 2) What is the age & wage of the deceased at the time of the accident? 3) Whether the applicant is entitled for any amount of compensation? If so what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled and who are liable to pay compensation? 7. In the course of enquiry, the Claimant No.1 was examined as A.W.1 and through her Exs.A.1 to A.7 i.e. Attested true copy of FIR, Attested true copy of Postmortem Report, Attested true copy of M.V.I. Report, Attested true copy of Inquest Report, Attested true copy of Charge Sheet, Xerox copy of Policy and Xerox copy of Driving License respectively. 7. In the course of enquiry, the Claimant No.1 was examined as A.W.1 and through her Exs.A.1 to A.7 i.e. Attested true copy of FIR, Attested true copy of Postmortem Report, Attested true copy of M.V.I. Report, Attested true copy of Inquest Report, Attested true copy of Charge Sheet, Xerox copy of Policy and Xerox copy of Driving License respectively. 8. No evidence was let in on behalf of the Opposite Parties. 9. The Commissioner taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record came to a conclusion that the deceased met with the accident while she was discharging duty assigned by O.P.No.1, by taking into consideration the wages payable to labourer as per G.O.Ms.No.30, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Lab-II) Dept., dated 27.07.2000 as Rs.2,700/- per month and taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 40 years awarded compensation of Rs.2,48,630/-. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed. 10. Heard Smt.A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the Appellant- Insurance Company and Sri Jayanthi SC Sekhar, learned counsel for the Respondents. 11. The counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company contended that there is no proof that the deceased was employed under O.P.No.1 at the time of accident. He further contended that no Certificate was produced by O.P.No.1/employer to establish that the deceased was working under O.P.No.1. 12. The counsel for the Respondents contended that the deceased was employed under O.P.No.1/employer is a question of fact and that may not be the subject matter of an appeal. The only ground to urge in an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act , 1923, where interference is only on a question of law. The further contention of the counsel for the Respondents was that the production of any Certificate cannot be called for as attending circumstances would demonstrate that the deceased was employed under O.P.No.1. 13. Having heard the respective contentions, this Court opines as under:- The Commissioner specifically framed issue to determine whether the deceased was a workman under O.P.No.1 or not. After referring to the evidence of A.W.1 and the documentary evidence that is available on record came to the conclusion that the deceased was working as a labourer under O.P.No.1 at the time of accident. The evidence on record does exactly show the jural relationship of employee and employer as the O.P.No.1 remained ex parte. After referring to the evidence of A.W.1 and the documentary evidence that is available on record came to the conclusion that the deceased was working as a labourer under O.P.No.1 at the time of accident. The evidence on record does exactly show the jural relationship of employee and employer as the O.P.No.1 remained ex parte. Notwithstanding the same, the normal understanding of labour travelling in goods van would be to presume that the labour is being taken in the vehicle as a loading and unloading labourer associated with the goods vehicle. The Claimants are young daughters of the deceased and the Appellant-Insurance Company with all its wherewithal did not seek to summon O.P.No.1 or the driver of the vehicle who was specifically named in the criminal case to substantiate the defence of lack of jural relationship. In that context, the conclusion arrived by the Commissioner cannot be said to be improbable. 14. The possible view is sufficient to uphold the compensation considering the scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923 as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., & Anr, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746 while explaining the scope of appeal under section 30 of the Act. The relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below; “23.It has also been observed by this Court that the Commissioner is the last authority on facts involved in a case. In Golla Rajamma & Ors. v. Divisional Manager & Anr.8 (2-Judge Bench) it was observed that “under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. 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 reappreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on 8 (2017) 1 SCC 45 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.” 24. Keeping in view the said principles, the impugned judgement, ex-facie, appears to be in contravention thereto. 25. On merits too, we find that the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner, were undoubtedly “a possible view”, therefore extinguishing the possibility of perversity in findings. Keeping in view the said principles, the impugned judgement, ex-facie, appears to be in contravention thereto. 25. On merits too, we find that the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner, were undoubtedly “a possible view”, therefore extinguishing the possibility of perversity in findings. 26. A Bench of two learned Judges observed in C. Manjamma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.9 “15. That being the position, the view taken by the Commissioner had been a possible view of the matter in the given set of facts and circumstances; and there was no reason for the High Court to interfere with the same, particularly when the case did not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, 1933.” 15. Therefore, this being a fact finding case and considering the scope of employment this Court cannot find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner. 16. Accordingly, the C.M.A is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. Since the incident had happened in the year 2006 and considering the time gap of 19 years and the uncertain addresses of the Claimants, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned Departments and inform the Claimants of the outcome of the appeal and ensure that the compensation is paid to the Claimants directly into his Aadhar linked bank account at the earliest. 18. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Legal Services Authority for taking necessary action. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.