JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (in short, the 'Act') at the instance of the Insurance Company is directed against the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (in short, the 'Commissioner'), Bhubaneswar, in W.C. Case No. 62 of 1996. 2. The claimant respondent No. i claims that he was working as a coolie under the owner of the truck bearing registration No. O.S.C. 4616. It is alleged that the truck met with an accident on May 13, 1992, as a result of which the claimant sustained severe injuries on his head in the said accident arising out of and in course of his employment. The very same claimant had earlier filed a claim application before the Commissioner, Cuttack, but the said claim application was withdrawn. The owner while admitting about the accident and the employment of the present claimant, contended that the monthly income of the claimant was Rs. 900/- and further contended that the compensation, if any, should be paid by the Insurance Company as the vehicle had been insured. The Insurance Company filed written statement denying in general the various allegations made in the claim application and called upon the claimant to prove his case. 3. The Commissioner found that the claimant was a workman and had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of employment. Assessing the loss of earning capacity at 40%, monthly income at Rs. 900/- and the age of the claimant at 25 years, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 39,044/- and directed that the same should be paid by the Insurance Company. 4. In this appeal it has been contended that more than six persons had filed various claim cases claiming that they were the workmen. It has been further contended that as per the policy, the coverage was in respect of driver, helper and four coolies and since there were more claimants, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay compensation. It was further contended that the finding that the claimant was a workman and the accident had arisen out of and in course of employment and the finding relating to loss of earning capacity, are illegal and cannot be sustained. 5. It was further contended that the finding that the claimant was a workman and the accident had arisen out of and in course of employment and the finding relating to loss of earning capacity, are illegal and cannot be sustained. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent has supported the findings of the Commissioner and has submitted that in view of the limited scope for interference u/s 30 of the Act, the findings do not call for any interference. It has been further submitted that though more cases had been filed by various persons, as a mater of fact, only in five cases awards have been made in favour of the claimants and the other cases had either been withdrawn or dismissed for non-prosecution. It has been further submitted that out of the five awardees, one was a helper and four others were coolies and the award in respect of each of the claimants should be satisfied by the Insurance Company, keeping in view the conditions of the Insurance Policy. 6. The findings of the Commissioner to the effect that the claimant was a workman and had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of employment are essentially findings of fact, not available to be challenged in appeal u/s 30 of the Act. The Tribunal has referred to the relevant evidence on record and came to the aforesaid finding. It cannot be said that there is any perversity in the aforesaid findings-Sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence cannot be a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference in an appeal u/s 30 of the Act. Even if the appellate Court is inclined to take a different view of the evidence on record, that cannot be considered as a substantial question of law in an appeal u/s 30 of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has also contended with some vehemence that the finding relating to loss of earning capacity cannot be sustained inasmuch as the claimant had not examined the doctor who had actually treated him initially after the accident and had examined the doctor who had allegedly treated him long after the accident. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has also contended with some vehemence that the finding relating to loss of earning capacity cannot be sustained inasmuch as the claimant had not examined the doctor who had actually treated him initially after the accident and had examined the doctor who had allegedly treated him long after the accident. In the present case the claimant has proved the various documents relating to the treatment undergone by him as indoor patient in the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack, and has examined the doctor who had subsequently treated him at Kendrapara. The doctor has given his finding with reference to the earlier document relating to his treatment as well as his own observation of the patient. Though the doctor had considered that the loss of earning capacity was 100%, the Commissioner has adopted a conservative approach and has assessed the loss of earning capacity at 40%, basing upon the argument made by the counsel for the Insurance Company. The finding of the Tribunal cannot be characterised as perverse. Since there are some materials in support of the finding of the Tribunal, such finding is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of appellate jurisdiction u/s 30 of the Act. I have also perused the various reports issued by the authorities of S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. Apart from the fracture sustained by the claimant, there are certain other injuries including some head injuries. The Insurance Company has not produced any other evidence to contradict the opinion of the doctor examined by the claimant. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that adverse inference should be drawn for non-examination of the doctor of S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack, who had treated the claimant cannot be sustained. If the Insurance Company was of the opinion that the evidence of the doctor who had initially treated the claimant was relevant, it could have summoned the very same doctor. At any rate, the question as to whether adverse inference should have been drawn or not was again within the discretion of the trial Court and non-drawal of such adverse inference cannot be considered as a substantial question of law. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner for examining the doctor. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner for examining the doctor. Such procedure may prove to be counter productive and the question of payment of interest may crop up. Since there are materials on record in support of the findings. I do not consider it a fit case where the award of the Commissioner should be interfered with or the matter should be remanded. 8. It was also contended that the claim case having been filed in the year 1996, was barred by limitation. It appears from the order dated March 26, 1997 that the delay in filing the claim had been condoned by the Commissioner after hearing the parties. Admittedly, the claimant had filed another claim application before the Commissioner, at Cuttack, in time but subsequently the said claim application was withdrawn. The discretion exercised by the Commissioner in condoning the delay need not be interfered with particularly when the circumstances justify such a course. The said contention is accordingly negatived. 9. It appears that the awarded amount had been invested in this Court by way of cheque but the term of the cheque appears to have expired, in the meantime. It is directed that the awarded amount should be deposited by the appellant before the Commissioner by end of November 1998, for payment to the claimant. If the said amount is not paid by end of November 1998, the awarded amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% thereafter. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed subject to the aforesaid direction. There will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed