1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.279 of 2010 National Insurance Company Limited VERSUS Banna Ram son of Shri Teja Ram and Others Date of Order :::: 03/02/2010. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Vizzy Agarwal, Counsel for the appellant-company. *** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the appellant-company. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-company is that the deceased in the instant case was a child and since he was a child he could not have been engaged as a workman and, therefore, the insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation on account of his death under the Workman Compensation Act. Learned counsel has further contended that under the Schedule no provision has been made for determination of compensation in Schedule-IV to any person below the age of 16-years as such the appellant-company is not liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased workman, who 2 was below the age of 16 years. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. Under the Workman Compensation Act the definition of the Workman has been given and the learned counsel for the appellant-company does not dispute the fact that no such distinction between a child labour or an adult has been made under the definition so as to exclude a child labour from the definition of Workman. So far as the question of the age of the deceased being below 16-years is concerned, there is a finding under the Issue No.4 given by the learned Workman Compensation Commissioner that the deceased was 16-years of age at the time of accident. This is a finding of fact on appreciation of the material on record. This Court in an appeal under Section 30 cannot re-appreciate the evidence as an appeal lies only on a substantial question of law. Learned counsel for the appellant-company contended that in the postmortem report the age has been given as 13-years. So far as the postmortem report is concerned that has been prepared by the doctor and not an admission of the claimant and can not have any binding effect upon the claimants, who are parents and dependents of the deceased. The father, who has filed the claim has given the age of the deceased as 16-years in the claim petition and in his statement 3 he has also deposed to this effect and on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances the learned Commissioner has given the finding regarding age of the deceased as 16 years, which is a finding of fact. That being a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Commissioner on the appreciation of the material on record, no interference can be made in an appeal under Section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923. Since, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. It may also be noted here that since the act itself has taken into consideration while quantifying the compensation under the Schedule-IV from the age of 16-years, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer that in the case of injury/death of a child labourer below 18 years of age his dependents are not entitled to compensation under the Workman Compensation Act can not be accepted. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The miscellaneous appeal and the stay application are accordingly dismissed. (Dalip Singh), J. Ashok/