ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. :- 1. By allowing I.A.No.3 of 2010, the document filed along with this application is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.1 of 2009. an application for condo-nation of the delay in filing the appeal. 3. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant! Insurance Company has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 4. I.A.No.1 of 2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. On due consideration, I.A. No. 2 of 2009 is allowed and the appellant/Insurance Company is permitted to incorporate the following as additional substantial question of law in the memo of appeal: "Where the claimants are the old parents, whether the relevant factor has to be applied on the basis of the age of the deceased or on the basis of the mean age of the parents / claimants, whichever being lower?" 6. Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 7. This is insurer's appeal against the impugned award dated 03.01.2009, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court, Durg, in Case No.177/WC Act/Fatal/2007. 8. Deceased Om Prakash was working as Truck Driver in the employment of respondent No.3 Harish Shukla. Respondents No.1 Harirarn and No.2 Smt Uma Bai, unfortunate parents of deceased Om Prakash (aged about 29 years) claimed compensation of Rs.4, 19,840/- with interest and penalty, for his death in the accident, during the course of his employment, on 29.10.2007. The accident occurred when the Truck over-turned in an attempt to save a cyclist. 9. The Commissioner vide impugned award dated 03.01.2009 has directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.3,11,9701- as compensation with interest@ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tilt the date of actual payment. 10. Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Commissioner has erred in awarding excessive compensation of Rs.3,11,970/- and in directing payment of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 11. According to the appellant/ Insurance Company, following two substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeal : "1. 10. Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Commissioner has erred in awarding excessive compensation of Rs.3,11,970/- and in directing payment of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 11. According to the appellant/ Insurance Company, following two substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeal : "1. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has erred in directing the appellant to pay a simple interest at the rate of9% annually from the date of presentation of the claim application instead of the date on which the compensation fell due? 2. Where the claimants are the old parents, whether the relevant factor has to be applied on the basis of the age of the deceased or on the basis of the mean age of the parents/ claimants, whichever being lower?" 12. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner is concerned, the same apparently is assessed on the basis of the factor value prescribed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, taking into account the age of the deceased and his income. The assessment of compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act does not leave any room for discretion either with the Commissioner or the Appellate Court. As such, the appellant's challenge to the quantum of compensation cannot be treated as a question of law much less a substantial question of law. 13. So far as the question relating to the date from which the interest is payable, Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the dicta of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and another1, and in the case of Kamla Chaturvedi Vs. National Insurance Company and other2, submitted that the Commissioner has erred in directing payment of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The learned counsel further submitted that interest ought to have been made payable from the date of award. 1. (2007) 2 SCC 349 2. (2009) 1 SCC 487 14. We are not required to dilate much on the above issue in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohd. Nasir and another3, wherein after considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. (2009) 1 SCC 487 14. We are not required to dilate much on the above issue in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohd. Nasir and another3, wherein after considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and another1, it was held in para 47 : "47. The second question which arises for consideration is with regard to the payment of interest. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that interest would be from the date of default and not from the date of award of compensation. " 15. In view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohd. Nasir and another3 (supra), the question relating to the date from which the interest would be payable also does not survive for decision as substantial question of law. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Insurer is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Appeal Dismissed.