G.M. Lodha, J.
1. Fatal accident of workman is sought to be snubbed by legal accidental gimmicks?
2. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Krishna Weaving Mills, Madan Ganj, Kishangarh (Ajmer) against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ajmer, dated 31st August, 1977, awarding Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent No. 1, Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi wd/o Mool Chand. It is not in dispute that Mool Chand died in an accident, it is also not in dispute that he was employed with the appellant-Mill.
3. It is also proved on record that Mool Chand died on account of the accident in the factory.
4. The only question raised by Shri K.N. Tikku, the learned Advocate for the appellant is that he was Munim and not workman and, further that no notice was given earlier to the appellant-Mill and, the appellant was made party later on after expiry of the period of limitation.
5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in addition to the evidence. There is no medical evidence on record. The deceased went in the factory and, since the electricity was not working on the motor of power loom connected with belts, he was putting Broxa (powder) and due to sudden start of electricity, the hand of Mool Chand was crushed as a whole and this resulted into head injury. The learned authority has correctly appreciated the evidence produced by the parties.
6. Since the appellant-Mill was introduced later on, when objection was taken, it was natural that earlier notice could not have given to appellant Mills. Further, in my opinion, it cannot be fatal, as giving of the notice is only intended for intimating the employer that he must pay the compensation for the accident.
7. The addition of the appellant-Mills in the application by an amendment would result in the amended claim reverting back to the filing of original claim and, there cannot be any question of claim, being time barred.
8. Moreover, under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act only substantial questions of law can be agitated. It the present case, I am convinced that there is no substantial question of law involved.
9. The question of public importance and question on which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial questions of law. Even if this definition is further extended, it will have to bear in mind that there is vast difference between the questions of law and substantial questions of law. It is only when the question of law is not well settled and it is of importance, it would become a substantial questions of law. The employer should not indiscriminately file appeals against poor workman's dependents. No notice is given before Fatal Accidents to the victim and how can want of notice to employer be fatal accident again, depriving compensation to unfortunate victims or dependents in cases of the Compensation Act.
10. Thus absence of notice cannot be fatal normally in Workmen Compensation cases nor it is substantial question of law. No substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal and, the appeal, therefore, is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-.