F.A.O. No. 3363 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 3363 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 3, 2011 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. …..Appellant Vs. Satbir Singh and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. The insurer aggrieved by the award passed by Commissioner under Workmen’s’ Compensation Act, Jind dated January 28, 2011 has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, mainly on the ground that the limitation has been wrongly condoned giving the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act which is not permitted on F.A.O. No. 3363 of 2011 (O&M) [2] the ground that the owner of the Truck i.e. the insured had denied his relationship with the claimants as such the insurer will not be liable. I have heard counsel for the appellant at length. Irrespective of the fact whether provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are applicable or whether any application was filed under Section 14 of the Act, it is sufficient to observe here that the power to condone any delay vests in the Commissioner while exercising powers under Section 22 of the Act. The Commissioner under 5th proviso of Section 10 of the Act has got authority to entertain and decide any claim of compensation not preferred within a period of two years, the period provided under Section 10 of the Act. As the discretion having been properly exercised by the Commissioner, there does not appear to be any ground to interfere in the same. So far as the second contention of counsel for the appeal that the insured had denied the relationship of employer and employee with the claimants is concerned, this plea has been taken into consideration by the Commissioner. The said plea has been rejected on the ground that the insured had filed an affidavit in evidence wherein he had never denied the employment of the claimants on his Truck. In view of the above circumstances, no substantial question of law is involved warranting interference under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Dismissed. F.A.O. No. 3363 of 2011 (O&M) [3] May 3, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE