8. Having gone through the order under challenge and the documentary evidence, I find that the Commissioner, after an elaborate discussion of the evidence adduced on either side and considering the documentary evidence on both sides in Ex.A.1FIR, Ex.A.2-Inquest report, Ex.A.3-P.M. report, Ex.A.4-M.V.I. report, Ex.A.5-Driving licence, Ex.A.6-Insurance policy and Ex.B.1-Insurance policy, came to the conclusion that the deceased-workmen N. Janardhan Rao died in the course of employment while driving the vehicle belonging to the Opposite Party No.1/6th respondent in the appeal and appellant is the insurer of the vehicle and that the Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants as Ex.A.6insurance policy is in force at the time of accident. The Commissioner also placed a reliance on G.O.Ms.No.30 Labour Employment, Training and Factories (Lab.II) Department, dated 27-07-2000 in granting minimum wage of the light vehicle driver. Nothing was brought to notice of Court that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is unjustified and excessive and the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner are not justified as such, I do not find any infirmity or illegality warranting interference of this Court, and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. This Court also does not see that any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.
