Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.:— This misc. appeal under section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act) has been filed by the Insurance Company claiming the following relief:—
“(A) The appeal be accepted and the judgment dated 18.8.2012 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Bayana, Dist. Bharatpur in Civil Misc. Application No. 448/2007 Ramwati v. Public in General may kindly be quashed and set aside so far granting of Succession Certificate of 1/6 share to Respondent No. 4 Deepak.
(B) Such other order as your Lordship deems proper may also be passed in favour of the appellants.”
2. At the outset learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (S) v. Sujatha (S). reported in (2019) 11 SCC 514 wherein para 9 and 10 which has been held as under:—
“9 At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act.
10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.”
3. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment clearly indicated that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that without formulating substantial question of law an appeal cannot be sustained.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance-company has not been able to point out any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under section 30 of the Act of 1923 and, therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
5. All pending applications also dismissed. Record of the trial court sent back forthwith.