DECISION This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the Commissioner allowing compensation to the respondent. The respondent was in the employment of the appellant. The respondent was removing caustic soda drums from the truck in order to keep in the godown when drum slipped and hit his right hand and thereby injuries were sustained. The respondent filed claim supported by medical evidence. The leamed Commissioner after recording the evidence and hearing the parties awarded the compensation.
2. The main ground agitated before me is that the appellant was not dealing in caustic soda and, therefore, it was not a business and injuries could not be said to have been sustained during the course of business. There is no force in this contention. The learned Commissioner on assessment of the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant was dealing in caustic soda. The evidence produced by the appellant was rejected. This is purely a question of fact and cannot be allowed to be agitated as no appeal lies against the determination of facts. It cannot be said that there was no evidence to support the finding of the Commissioner. It was, however, pointed out on behalf of the appellant that respondent had stated that they were loading drums while another witness Jumma stated that they were loading pipes. In my view it is simply a question of calling a particular item as drum or pipe and there is no material difference between the two terms so as to affect the decision of the Commissioner. No other point has been raised before me, The appeal is dismissed. Stay stands discharged.