This Court finds that the Commissioner has rightly taken into account the contents of the FIR as well as the depostion of AW.3, Kalu Singh who was the prime-witness of the said incident wherein it has been clearly stated that the deceased, Mr. Samant Singh was already suffering from a prior ailment, i.e. fever, even before sitting on the driving wheel. Thus, this Court concurrs with the finding given by the Commissioner on the issue no. 1 that since the deceased, Mr. Samant Singh was already suffering from an ailment, i.e. fever prior to starting his duty and therefore, the death cannot be said to have ocurred during the course of employment or arising out of the course of employment. 21. Subsequently, the questions No.2 and 3 suggested by the appellants/claimants in the instant appeal, are questions of fact, wherein the Court will have to re-appreciate the findings given by the Commissioner, which in the instant appeal cannot be gone into, inasmuch as per proviso to Section 30 of the Act of 1923, which inter-alia provides that no appeal can lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved. Section 30 of the Act of 1923 reads as under:
