JUDGMENT : Heard Mrs. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Court vide the order dated 08.01.2014 admitted the appeal on the following two substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the learned Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation commited error by failing to issue notice under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923? 2. Whether the learned Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation committed error by granting the award without substituting the legal heirs of the deceased/opposite party No.1 i.e. the owner of the concerned vehicle?” 3. For the purpose of deciding the said question of law, it would be relevant for this Court to take into consideration the brief facts of the instant case. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they stood before the Commissioner. 4. It appears from the record that the claimant was a driver by profession and was employed as a driver by the opposite party No.1 in his vehicle bearing registration No.AS-15/6868 (Maruti Car). On 21.06.2008 while the claimant was driving the said vehicle from Sarbhog towards Barpeta Road, the vehicle met with an accident at around 5.30 PM at NH-31 at Bandarkhowa under the jurisdiction of the Sarbhog PS. Accordingly, a claim petition was filed before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation at Bajali Sub Division, Barpeta. In the said claim petition, it has been specifically mentioned that the claimant after the accident approached the opposite party No.1 seeking financial assistance and the opposite party No.1 had informed the claimant that his vehicle was duly insured and further instructed him to obtain the compensation by filing appropriate proceeding before the competent authority. Under such circumstances, the said claim petition was filed which was registered and numbered as W.C Case No.12/2010. 5. In the said proceedings, the owner was impleaded as the opposite party No.1 and the Branch Manger of the National Insurance Company was impleaded as the opposite party No.2. The said claim proceeding was filed on 29.04.2010. After issuance of notice the son of the owner filed a written statement stating inter alia that the owner died on 30.03.2010 and enclosed the death certificate. The said claim proceeding was filed on 29.04.2010. After issuance of notice the son of the owner filed a written statement stating inter alia that the owner died on 30.03.2010 and enclosed the death certificate. It was further mentioned that the claimant was employed by the opposite party No.1 as the driver of the vehicle AS-15 6868 and the opposite party No.1 used to pay Rs.4500/-pm to the claimant as monthly salary. It was further mentioned that when the claimant sought for financial assistance from the opposite party No.1, he had directed the claimant to obtain the compensation by filing a suit as his vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd, Barpeta Road branch vide policy No.200702/31/07/610000368 valid upto 27.02.2009. 6. The opposite party No.2 i.e., National Insurance Co. Ltd also filed their written statement on 25.08.2010. In paragraph 5 of the said written statement a preliminary objection was taken to the effect that claim petition does not reflect that the claimant have served any notice to the employer under section 10 of the WC Act, 1923 and in absence of serving any notice to the employer which is mandatory as per the said act, the claim of the claimant is not main tenable and is liable to be rejected 7. Apart from that on merits, the claim of the claimants was refuted on the ground that the claimant did not have a professional license and it was mentioned that the claimant has to prove his entitlement to the compensation by producing sufficient satisfactory evidence. 8. It further appears from the record that the claimants have adduced evidence of Baijayanta Dewri as well as evidence of Dr. Suresh Ch. Sarma. There was no evidence led on behalf of opposite parties. 9. The Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, Bajali Sub-Division Barpeta, vide a judgment dated 11.08.2011 after taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence on record awarded a compensation of Rs.1,67,496 on account of personal injury sustained by the claimant in the vehicular accident arising out of and in course of his employment under the Opposite Party No.1. 9. The Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, Bajali Sub-Division Barpeta, vide a judgment dated 11.08.2011 after taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence on record awarded a compensation of Rs.1,67,496 on account of personal injury sustained by the claimant in the vehicular accident arising out of and in course of his employment under the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.2, the appellant herein was directed to deposit the said amount of compensation before the Commissioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order for disbursement to the claimant and in default the Insurance company was held to be liable to pay interest at 12% from one month after the date of the order till the date of the deposit. It is against the said judgment and order dated 11.08.2011 that the instant appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. 10. A perusal of Section 30 of the said Act of 1923 shows that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the orders of the Commissioner provided their arises a substantial question of law in the appeal. This Court vide the order dated 08.01.2014 as stated herein above, formulated two substantial questions of law. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. 12. Let this Court first take into consideration, as to whether the substantial questions of law so formulated arises in the instant appeal. The first substantial questions of law is as to whether the learned Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation committed error by failing to issue notice under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the substantial question ought to have been as to whether the learned Commissioner while deciding the claim proceedings failed to take into consideration that there was no notice under section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 14. A perusal of Section 10 of the Act of 1923 stipulates about Notice and Claim. 14. A perusal of Section 10 of the Act of 1923 stipulates about Notice and Claim. While sub-section (1) of Section 10 stipulates that no claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner provided and as soon as practicable after the happening of accident and unless the claim is preferred before the Commissioner within 2 (two) years from the occurrence of the accident or in case of death within 2 (two) years from the date of death. 15. At this stage, it may be relevant to take notice of the fourth proviso to Section 10 (1) and more particularly, clause (b) of the fourth proviso which stipulates that want of or any defect or irregularity in the notice shall not bar to the entertainment of a claim if the employer had knowledge of the accident from any other source at or about the time when it is occurred. 16. In the instant case, at paragraph No.6 of the claim petition it has been specifically mentioned that that the claimant had approached the opposite party No.1 claiming financial assistance and the opposite party No.1 had categorically informed the claimant to file a suit before the competent authority. Further to that in the written statement filed by the legal representative of the opposite party No.1, the said aspect have been duly admitted. Considering the above, sub-clause (b) of the fourth proviso is applicable, the said substantial question does not arise in the instant appeal. 17. The second substantial question of law so framed as to whether the learned Commissioner of Workmen’s compensation committed error by granting the award without substituting the legal heirs of the deceased/opposite party No.1 i.e., the owner of the concerned vehicle. Before adjudicating on the said question of law as to whether the same arises in the facts of the case, it is relevant to take note of that the Employees Compensation Act 1923 is benevolent and welfare legislation and technicalities ought not to be permitted to come in the way in the case of substantial justice. 18. In the instant case the opposite party No.1, though, was dead on 30.03.2010 but he was duly represented by his legal representatives who had filed the written statement on behalf of opposite party No.1. 18. In the instant case the opposite party No.1, though, was dead on 30.03.2010 but he was duly represented by his legal representatives who had filed the written statement on behalf of opposite party No.1. Under such circumstances, the said substantial question of law so framed is not a substantial question of law for the purpose of the instant appeal. 19. Consequently, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 20. Send down the LCR, if any.