JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. — The appellant has filed an application being Misc. Case No. 149 of 2002 for condonation of the delay of 72 days in filing the present appeal. Though the ground taken in the said application is not convicting considering the submission of the learned counsel for insurer appellant that unless the delay is condoned and the appeal is heard on merit, the Insurer would suffer irreparable loss. I condone the delay subject to payment of cost of rupees five hundred to the claimant respondent No. 1 within seven days hence. The misc. case is accordingly allowed. 2. With the request of the learned counsel for the par¬ties, the appeal was taken up for admission and final disposal. 3. Heard Shri N. K. Misra, learned counsel for the appel¬lant, as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The appeal is directed against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, (hereinafter called the ‘Commissioner’) in W. C. Case No. 259-D/98, wherein an amount of Rs. 1,65,753/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 for the bodily injuries sustained by him in an accident while driving the ill-facted bus bearing registration number ORY-3297 belonging to respondent No. 2. 5. The Commissioner framed as many as four issues and while deciding the aforesaid issues came to hold that the claim¬ant was a workman, who sustained injuries during the course of his employment and that the vehicle was duly insured with the insurer and the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The Commissioner further held that the disability of the claimant respondent No. 1 is 45% which is permanent in nature and the loss of earning capacity is 50%. The Commissioner arrived at the aforesaid finding basing upon the opinion of the treating doctor. Dr. Purnanda Ojha, who was exam¬ined as a witness being P.W.3. 6. Under the provisions of the W.C. Act, no appeal shall lie unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In the case at hand, I do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which I am no inclined to entertain the appeal. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed having no merit. Appeal dismissed.