TRIVEDI, J.—Appellants have preferred the present appeal challenging the order dated 19.9.2000 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Court, District Tonk, in Case No.W/CA/M.F.-16/93, whereby the Commissioner has awarded Rs. 28,035/- as compensation to the respondent-workman for the injuries sustained by him during the course of his employment. 2. It appears that respondent No.2 had made an application under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') on 18.8.1993 for the injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred during the course of his service on 12.5.1991. According to the respondent No.2, he had sustained permanent disability to the extent of 30% and had made the claim of Rs.67,651/- with interest @ 12% p.a. The Commissioner awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.28,035/- with interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. from the date of the application till the payment vide impugned award dated 19.9.2000. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. S.D. Khaspuria for the appellant that the application of the respondent No.2 under the said Act was time barred inasmuch as the incident in question had taken place on 12.5.1991 and respondent No.2 had filed the application on 18.8.1993. He also submitted that the disability to the extent of 30% was not proved by the respondent No.2, therefore the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is not in accordance with law. 4. At the outset, it is required to be stated that though the order under challenge is dated 19.9.2000, the appellant had not bothered to get the matter heard till this date. It also not disputed that the amount awarded by the Commissioner has already been deposited by the appellant pursuant to the impugned order passed about 12 years back, and the same also might have been disbursed to the respondent-workman by now. Though there is some substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that the application of the respondent workman was barred by the period of limitation prescribed under section 10 of the said Act, this Court is not inclined to interfered with the said order considering long time gap and the amount involved in the appeal. 5. In that view of the matter the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.