[2025:RJ-JP:20464] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 245/2013 Pawan Kumar s/o Sh. Sua Lal, aged 30 years, r/o Jaitusar, Tan Reengus, PS Reengus, r/o Jat Colony, Peeprali Road, Tehsil & District Sikar (Raj.) ----Claimant-Appellant Versus 1. Chotu Ram s/o Shri Ramchandra, r/o Dhani Sukhbaba ki, Jhotwada, Jaipur (Raj.) ---(Owner of Truck No.HR 47 8805) 2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Manager, Divisional Office upon PL Motors, Bhagwati Bhawan, Government Press Crossing, MI Road, Jaipur (Raj.) ---(Insurance Co. of Truck No.HR 47 8805) ----Non-Claimants-Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav on behalf of Mr. Harsh Saini For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 15/05/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 30 of Workman Compensation Act, 1923, for enhancement of compensation, assailing the impugned judgment dated 12.10.2012 passed by Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Jaipur City, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "learned Commissioner") in Claim Case No.WCC/NF/11/2009 titled as "Pawan Kumar Vs. Choturam & Anr.", whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was partly allowed and an amount of Rs.3,87,505/- along with interest @ 12% per annum interest has been awarded. 2. The only grievance raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant is that the learned Commissioner has erred in assessing the monthly income of the injured appellant at the rate [2025:RJ-JP:20464] (2 of 3) [CMA-245/2013] of Rs.3,000/- per month whereas at the time of the accident, the income of the appellant was Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, he prays that the impugned award may be modified and compensation so awarded be enhanced. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and also the material available on record. 4. From a bare perusal of the record, it is reflected that at the time of the accident, the age of the injured was 26 years and it has been admitted by the appellant in cross examination that his monthly salary is Rs.3,000/-. Further, there is no documentary evidence available on the record to substantiate that at the time of the accident, monthly income of the appellant was Rs.6,000/-. 5. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Commissioner has rightly assessed the monthly income of the injured at Rs.3,000/- and calculated the compensation while taking into account the age of the appellant as 26 years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order impugned suffers from arbitrariness or perversity. Even otherwise, because the present appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, but in the present case, all the questions so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant fall within the realms of questions of fact and no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. 6. In the opinion of this court, learned Commissioner is the final authority of facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matters of Gola Rajanna Etc. Vs. The Divisional Manager and Anr. reported in 2017(1) SCC 45, North East Karnataka Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514, [2025:RJ-JP:20464] (3 of 3) [CMA-245/2013] Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi v. Chhatra Devi, reported in JT 2005 (6) SC 167 , M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer v. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi wife of Mool Chand & Anr., reported in 1985 (1) WLN 455, held that a finding of fact cannot be re-appreciated while deciding the appeal against the award passed by learned Commissioner if no substantial question of law is involved. 7. It is the settled position of law that limited jurisdiction has been given to the High Court confined to the substantial question of law only and the High Court cannot venture and re appreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by both the parties. 8. This Court find no good ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law. This Court accordingly upholds these findings. 9. Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed. 10. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/11 Whether Reportable : Yes/No