// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4466/2007 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Limited Versus Surendra Singh S/o Shri Prabhu Singh and Another Date of Order ::: 09.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Virendra Agrawal with Shri Man Singh Chudawat, Counsel for appellant #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Non-claimant No.2-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act of 1923') against the judgment/award dated 30th October, 2007 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Jaipur, whereby the application for compensation filed on behalf of the injured-respondent No.1 has been allowed and a sum of Rs.2,60,292/- has been awarded as compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the relationship of employer and employee in between the non-claimant No.1 and claimant was not proved in the present case and the learned Commissioner committed an illegality // 2 // in allowing the application for compensation under the provisions of the Act of 1923. His another submission is that there was no documentary evidence in support of the claimant's statement about his monthly salary at the rate of Rs.4,000/- and, in absence of it, it could not have been presumed that the applicant was earning Rs.4000/- per month and the amount of compensation calculated on that basis is bad in law and the same is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the impugned judgment passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act. The learned Commissioner, while deciding Issue No.1 has categorically mentioned that the employer/non-claimant No.1 admitted in his written-reply that the applicant was in his employment and he was the driver at the relevant time on the disputed vehicle. The Tribunal has further observed that so far as monthly income of the applicant at the rate of Rs.4000/- is concerned, the said fact has also been admitted by the employer/non-applicant No.1 in the written-reply. The learned Tribunal has recorded its finding on the basis of written-reply filed on behalf of the employer. Both the above submissions of the learned counsel for the // 3 // appellant relate to question of fact whereas the appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 lie only where a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act of 1923 specifically provides that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. No other point has been argued on behalf of the appellant. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this miscellaneous appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//