DECISION This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. The respondent had filed an application to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for compensation for having sustained an injury during the course of employment while handling the foodgrains. It was said that the appellant-company was the Commission Agent to handle foodgrains imported by the Government. The appellant disputed the liability on the ground that the respondent was never employed as workman and no injury W9s sustained during the course pf any such employment, lt was asserted 3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. Medical evidence was also produced to support the nature of the injury received by the respondent. On assessm ent of the evidence the learned Commissioner found in favour of the respondent and rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. Consequently compensation was allowed as under:-- Compensation Rs. 2,400 Medical Charges Rs. 32 Witness Charges (Bhatta) Rs.
32 TOTALRs. 2,480 Advocate fees & court-fees Rs. I6 Aggrieved by this the present appeal was filed by the Company. At the. outset it may be stated that appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is maintainable only if a substantial question of law is involved. In the present case there is no such legal question, but the disposal of the claim depended upon the investigation of the facts. Consequently it is a question of fact and not of law and, therefore, no appeal lies. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel he urged that it was a mixed question of law and fact.
Even if that be so, it does not help the appellant as already indicated the appeal lies only against the determination of a question of law and not a mixed question of law and fact provided, of course, if legal infirmity arises on the basis of the facts which are either admitted or established.
This is not the case here. What has been contended is that the Commissioner ignored the evidence tendered on behalf of the appellant showing that no work of handling the foodgraios was entrusted by the Government to the appellant. This contention is also misconceived as the leamed Commissioner had referred to the evidence and rejected it on the ground that no documentary proof was furnished despite the fact that such a proof was available. The learned Commissioner was not inclined to accept the bare oral testimony. The question whether a particular witness ought to have been believed is a question of appreciation of evidence and certainly not a pure question of law.
4. No other point has been urged before me. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.