D/L.13. September 17, 2026. KAUSHIK F.M.A.T. 37 of 2021 CAN 1 of 2021 CAN 2 of 2021 Montu Sk. @ Mantu Sk. Vs. Abdul Halim S. K. & Anr. Mr. Soujanya Bandyopadhyay … for the appellant wife. Mr. Rajesh Singh Mr. Aniruddha Singh … for the respondent no. 2 1. This is an appeal under section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act). 2. The brief facts of this case are as follows: (a) On 5 June, 2011, one 29 years old Montu Sk. @ Mantu Sk. (the appellant herein) while working as a driver of a truck was hit by another lorry. Due to such accident, the appellant sustained fracture injury in his right elbow. The Medical Board assessed 50 per cent disability. 3. By the impugned order, the Learned Commissioner, on the basis of monthly income of Rs.8,000/- of the victim and considering the loss of earning capacity at 20 per cent, passed an award of Rs.2,01,523 along with interest @ 12 per cent to be calculated from one month after the accident. The respondent insurance company has deposited the entire compensation with the Commissioner. The appellant seeks enhancement of compensation. It is alleged that the appellant had lost his job and therefore the 2 calculation should have been made by considering his 100 per cent loss of earning capacity rather than 20 per cent. 4. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the question of renewal of driving licence in assessing the loss of earning is misconceived and could not have been taken into account. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that the Commissioner had erroneously held that he lost his earning capacity only to the extent of 20 per cent which is disproportionately on the lower side and unjustified and unfair in comparison to the suffering as well as loss of strength of the appellants right hand. 5. On behalf of the respondent Insurance company, it is submitted that there is no substantial question of law which has been raised in this appeal. 6. The learned Commissioner assessed the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at 20 per cent instead of 50 per cent, as reflected in the disability certificate assessed by the Medical Board. The Commissioner took note of the fact that the driving license of the victim was renewed on and from 10 June, 2011 i.e. after 5 days of the accident and remained valid till 9 June, 2014. The fact that there was no evidence that the victim surrendered his driving license also weighed with the Commission. Moreover, the injury of the claimant was confined to his right elbow only and all the relevant points has 3 been considered by the Commissioner in assessing the compensation. 7. Under the Scheme of the Act, it is clear that an appeal from an order of Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law. In its ordinary and general meaning, the phrase ‘substantial question of law’ would indicate a limited jurisdiction which is confined only to examine substantial questions of law and not to get into any factual controversy. 8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the disputes raised by the appellant are purely factual in nature and do not involved any question of law whatsoever. As a proposition, a second appeal is to be admitted only if the case involves a precise question of law at the stage of admission. [Balwinder Singh vs. National Fertilizers Ltd. (2014) 13 SCC 277]. All the questions raised in this appeal are purely factual in nature and do not call for an admission. 9. In view of the above, FMAT 37 of 2021 along with connected interlocutory application stands dismissed. 10. Liberty is granted to the appellant to withdraw the entire amount lying deposited by the respondent insurance company after complying with all necessary formalities. (Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Atarup Banerjee, J.)