JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal arises from the impugned order of the learned Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. ( for short the ?Commissioner?), whereby he allowed the application preferred thereat by the claimant/respondent No.1 for the grant of compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act (for short the ?Act?). 2. The Insurance company-appellant herein standing aggrieved by the rendition of the learned Commissioner hence concerts to assail it by preferring an appeal therefrom before this Court. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimant being quite old and poor fellow was fully dependent upon his son, namely, late Sh. Abdul Majid. His son had died on 24.11.1997 when he was employed as trolla driver by respondent No.2 herein. During the course of such employment, when the deceased was taking the machineries to NJPC in his trolla bearing No. HP-38-3935 and reached at Seglata near Narkanda, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla at about 4.30 PM, he was not allowed to go ahead as the crane was lifting another trolla rolled down earlier. When, he after getting down from the said trolla looking the process of lifting of another trolla by crane, suddenly a big kail tree got uprooted and struck on the head of said Abdul Mahjid and resulted into his death on the spot. 4. The appellant herein standing aggrieved by the rendition of the learned District Judge hence concerts to reverse it by preferring an appeal therefrom before this Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 29.05.2008, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted here before by the Insurance company/appellant against the order of the learned Commissioner, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimant was entitled to interest of Rs.1,89,290/- when the amount was determined on 10.10.2007 in view of the judgment of this High Court and Apex Court. b) Whether the compensation of Rs.1,61,460/- is sustainable in law hen there was no privity of contract with the appellant and the claim petition was filed in collusion with the respondent No.1? Substantial questions of law No.1 and 2. 5. b) Whether the compensation of Rs.1,61,460/- is sustainable in law hen there was no privity of contract with the appellant and the claim petition was filed in collusion with the respondent No.1? Substantial questions of law No.1 and 2. 5. The contest qua the tenacity of the impugned rendition as stands projected herebefore by the learned counsel for the appellant is qua the rate of interest levied on the compensation amount assessed vis-a-vis the claimant by the learned Commissioner standing erroneously calculated from the date of accident whereas it was enjoined to be calculated from the date of the relevant adjudication. However, the aforesaid submission suffers dilution in the face of a verdict pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled as Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others versus National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2014)2 SCC 298 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has pronounced qua the relevant date for levying interest on the compensation amount determined under the Act by the Commissioner is the date of accident and not the date of the relevant adjudication. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not contested the factum of the predecessor-in-interest of the claimant standing employed by respondent No.2 herein also he does not contest the factum of his suffering his demise during the course of his performing employment in the relevant capacity under his employer. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pressed before this Court qua non occurrence of privity of contract inter se the insured and the insurer whereupon he contends qua the impugned rendition of the learned Commissioner whereupon it stood fastened with liability to indemnify the insured qua the compensation amount besides qua the interest levied thereon warranting interference. However, the aforesaid submission falters, in the face of existence of a photo copy of insurance cover executed qua the relevant vehicle inter se the appellant and respondent No.2 herein, efficacy whereof remained unrepudiated. However, the counsel for the appellant yet contends of the respondent concerned holding any leverage to derive any benefit therefrom, in the trite factum of the insured not defraying to the insurer the relevant premium whereupon obviously it stood not enjoined to comply with the relevant contract of insurance. However, in substantiation of the aforesaid factum, as aptly concluded by the learned Commissioner no cogent evidence stands adduced. However, in substantiation of the aforesaid factum, as aptly concluded by the learned Commissioner no cogent evidence stands adduced. In sequel, the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company holds no merit. 7. Furthermore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits qua with the claimant/respondent instituting before the learned Commissioner a petition for claiming compensation under the Act from his employer after two years elapsing since the ill-fated whereupon his son suffered his end rendered it to be not maintainable before the Commissioner, its standing preferred there before after elpase of the statutorily enjoined period of limitation for its preferment, significantly, when its preferment therebefore by the claimant was statutorily enjoined, by the mandate of sub section (1) to Section 10 of the Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, to occur within two years from the date of accident. However, the aforesaid plea stands not raised by the appellants/insurance company in its reply furnished to the apposite petition nor an apposite issue in regard thereto stands struck. Consequently, the appellant/Insurance Company is deemed to waive the aforesaid objection qua hence the non maintainability of the apposite petition before the learned Commissioner. Also with the proviso existing in Section 10 of the Act, whereupon the learned Commissioner, on sufficient cause as evidently exists before him in display of the claimant thereupon standing deterred to within the aforesaid period of time institute his petition before him, holding jurisdiction to condone the delay, did not enjoin the claimant for gaining capitalization thereof to file a separate petition for seeking condonation of delay in the belated preferment of the apposite petition before him nor also a separate order was enjoined to be passed in respect thereto. The combined effect, of omission of the insured to project the aforesaid ground qua non maintainability of the apposite petition before the Commissioner in its reply also when no issue qua it stood struck nor any evidence thereupon stood adduced alongwith the aforestated underlying nuance carried by the engraftment of the aforesaid proviso in Section 10 of the Act whereupon the rigor of sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Act stands relaxed on satisfaction standing drawn by the Commissioner qua sufficiency of cause deterring him to within time institute an application therebefore, is of the Commissioner concerned in ultimately pronouncing his adjudication upon the apposite petition, his hence standing satisfied with the sufficiency of cause which deterred the claimant to within time prefer the petition before him, imperatively when his pronouncing an adjudication upon the apposite petition is significatory qua an implied besides a deemed satisfaction drawn within the ambit of proviso to sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Act by the Commissioner qua sufficiency of cause qua the relevant purpose also when hence he was not enjoined to explicitly pronounce qua the aforesaid facet in his rendition. Relevant provisions of Section 10 of the Act read as under:- “10. Relevant provisions of Section 10 of the Act read as under:- “10. Notice and claim.- (1) No claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner hereinafter provided as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before him within 2 two years] of the occurrence of the accident or, in case of death, within 2 two years] from the date of death:] Provided that, where the accident is the contracting of a disease in respect of which the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 3 are applicable, the accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the first of the days during which the workman was continuously absent from work in consequence of the disablement caused by the disease: 3 Provided further that in case of partial disablement due to the contracting of any such disease and which does not force the workman to absent himself from work, the period of two years shall be counted from the day the workman gives notice of the disablement to his employer: Provided further that if a workman who, having been employed in an employment for a continuous period, specified under sub- section (2) of section 3 in respect of that employment, ceases to be so employed and develops symptoms of an occupational disease peculiar to that employment within two years of the cessation of employment, the accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the day on which the symptoms were first detected:] 4 Provided further that the want of or any defect or irregularity in a notice shall not be a bar to the 5 entertainment of a claim]— (a) if the claim is 6 preferred] in respect of the death of a workman resulting from an accident which occurred on the premises of the employer, or at any place where the workman at the time of the accident was working under the control of the employer or of any person employed by him, and the workman died on such premises or at such place, or on any premises belonging to the employer, or died without having left the vicinity of the premises or place where the accident occurred, or (b) if the employer 1 or any one of several employers or any person responsible to the employer for the management of any branch of the trade or business in which the injured workman was employed] had knowledge of the accident from any other source at or about the time when it occurred: Provided further, that the Commissioner may 2 entertain] and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given, or the claim has not been 3 preferred], in due time as provided in this sub- section, if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or 4 prefer] the claim, as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause.? 8. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. In sequel, the order impugned hereat is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.