Rakesh Tiwari, J.— We have heard Sri Rahul Sahai, counsel for the appellant, on the question of condonation of delay and perused the record as also papers filed along with memo of appeal. Both the appeals are reported to be beyond time by 340 days. Having gone through the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, we are of the view that the cause shown for delay in filing appeal is sufficient. Delay is condoned. Delay condonation applications are, accordingly, allowed. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case. Since both the appeals arise out from the same judgment dated 4.4.2012 passed by Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, Under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, Ghaziabad in W.C.A. No. 163 of 2010: Saddik Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and another and in W.C.A. No. 171 of 2010: Vidhur Kunwar Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and another, the appeals are being decided by a common judgment. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,16,672/- in W.C.A. No. 163 of 2010 and Rs.5,52,510/- in W.C.A. No. 171 of 2010 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of actual payment within 30 days of the award to be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant-respondent. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants during course of their employment being seated/driving the truck in question, hit a stationery trailer. In the said accident, claimants of both the appeals sustained grievous injuries resulting therein they suffered permanent disability. Claim petition was preferred by the claimant-respondents of W.C.A. No. 163 of 2010 as well as 171 of 2010. The averment made in the claim petition by the workmen was accepted by the owner of the truck to the extent that the accident had occurred with his truck, whereas Insurance Company ensurer of truck denied the said averment in totality. The appellant claims to have appointed an Investigator to verify the sanctity of claim petition and the documents filed by the claimants. It is stated that before the Investigator could submit his report, the impugned award dated 4.4.2012 was passed. The appellant claims to have appointed an Investigator to verify the sanctity of claim petition and the documents filed by the claimants. It is stated that before the Investigator could submit his report, the impugned award dated 4.4.2012 was passed. It is after passing of the award, report of Investigator was submitted on 4.4.2012 from which it was revealed that discharge summary of Shisodiya Nursing Home and the alleged police intimation dated 29.3.2007 were forged documents; that in the aforesaid backdrop against the order dated 4.4.2012, the appellant was constrained to file review application before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Ghaizabad. During its pendency the appellant moved another application for summoning the Investigating Officer, Police Station-Sahibabad, Ghaizabad, U.P. which was rejected vide order dated 19.10.2012. Therefore, the appellant approached the High Court challenging the order dated 4.4.2012 in writ petition and not the order dated 19.10.2012 passed on review application. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that appellant had an alternative remedy of filing appeal and it is in these circumstances that this first appeal from order had been filed with some delay. Per contra learned counsel for the appellant had claimed that truck in question had not met with the accident. The only ground assailed before us is that the Tribunal ought to have afforded an opportunity to the appellant and should have heard the appellant for considering the report of Investigator who had found certain documents filed by appellant to be forged. No other ground has been argued. However, on the basis of evidence, the Tribunal recorded findings of fact that truck in question had met with the accident in which the claimants suffered permanent disablement during and in course of employment. Accordingly, the Tribunal delivered its judgment on 4.4.2012. Instead of filing appeal, the Insurance Company chose to challenge the order in review application in order to avoid to deposit amount of compensation as provided under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. However, the same was rejected on the ground of alternative remedy. We are constrained to say that the appellants have neither challenged the order dated 19.10.2012 nor appended the same to this appeal. However, the same was rejected on the ground of alternative remedy. We are constrained to say that the appellants have neither challenged the order dated 19.10.2012 nor appended the same to this appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusal of record, we are not inclined to interfere in this case for the reason that admittedly, claim petition was filed by the workmen travelling on the truck which had met with an accident when they were on their duty during and in course of employment which has been admitted by the owner of the truck. There is no provision for review of an award under the Workmen Compensation Act, as has been held that in such circumstance, appellant ought to have preferred appeal challenging the award impugned as is being done now and not have tried to avoid to deposit of the amount of compensation. This is nothing, but a smart act by the Insurance Company to delay the matter. Consequently, the Insurance Company ought to have summon the Investigating Officer or any person for establishing that the documents submitted by the appellant were forged, which had not been done. Moreover, Investigating Officer of the Company was under its control. The appellant knew about the proceedings and date fixed by the Commissioner in Workmen Compensation Cases filed by the claimants and should have submitted the report of Investigator earlier. Thus, we find that the appellant had not only failed to establish its case before the Employees Compensation Commissioner but has also conducted itself in a manner which is not expected from such a company. In our considered opinion the appellants have failed to make out any case of illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. For all the reasons stated above, both the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________