AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter for short referred to as, 'Act of 1923') impugning the order dated 10/08/2023 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation -cum- Labour Court, Ratlam (M.P.) in W.C.F. No. 10/2018, whereby the Commissioner has dismissed the application filed by the appellants seeking compensation of Rs. 7,31,868/- with interest and penalty under Section 12 of the Act of 1923.
The short facts of the case are that the deceased Hamid Kha was in the employment of Western Railway and was working on the Railway Track. On the fateful day of 13/03/2012 at about 11:30 am, he fell down during performing the duties. He was taken to the Hospital, where he declared died. Merg was registered by the police and after the postmortem the body was handed over to the family. In the postmortem, the cause of death was shown as 'Cardiac Respiratory Failure due to chronic Cardiac Respiratory Disturbance'.
2.1) The appellants filed an application under Section 12 of the Act of 1923 seeking compensation on account of death of deceased Hamid Kha on 20/07/2018, which was contested by the respondents. The issues were settled, wherein issue No. 4 was settled in respect of limitation. After recording the evidence of the witnesses, by order dated 10/08/2023, the claim petition was decided and issue No. 4 was decided against the appellants and it has been held that the claim petition filed by the appellants was barred by limitation and consequently, the claim petition was also dismissed.
Mr. J. M. Poonegar, advocate on behalf of the appellants and Mr. J. B. Mehta, advocate on behalf of the respondents have been heard on the question of admission.
Mr. Poonegar submits that the deceased was performing the duties and died during the duty hours, therefore, employer is liable to pay compensation as per the provisions of Act of 1923 within a period of one month, which the employer had not paid and therefore, the appellants are entitled to get the compensation along with penalty and interest.
4.1) He submits that though the limitation for filing the compensation application is two years, but the same could not be filed within limitation, as the appellants were doing correspondence with the employer for payment of compensation. He submits that law of Workmen's Compensation is a welfare law, therefore, the claim application should not be dismissed on technical grounds.
4.2) He relied upon the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy and Others reported in 1996 ACJ 1044, wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with a case preferred under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 held that right to claim compensation by the claimants in respect of the motor vehicle accident should not be defeated on technical grounds.
4.3) He further relied on the judgment delivered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of S. N. Bihari Vs. Western Coal Field and Another reported in 2008(2) M.P.L.J. 187 , wherein co-ordinate Bench has held that for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing the claim case, sufficient cause must be construed.
4.4) Learned counsel further relied on the judgment delivered by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of M. P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur Vs. Lachchiram reported in 2004(3) M.P.L.J. 563 , wherein the co-ordinate Bench has held that if in the claim petition, the reasons for delay have been mentioned, the Court should condone the delay even without a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
4.5) Mr. Poonegar submits that though no application for condonation of delay was filed by the appellants, but the Commissioner ought to have condone the delay by exercising his discretion, therefore, Commissioner has committed error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of delay.
Mr. J. B. Mehta, advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that after the death of Hamid Kha, family pension has been started and is being paid to his widow. The other payments under the heads of Gratuity, GPF and Group Insurance have also been paid to the appellants, therefore, the allegation of the appellant that appellants are suffering financial constraints, is incorrect. He submits that the cause of death of the Hamid Kha was Cardiac Respiratory Failure and he died a natural death. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.
After considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, it appears that the application for compensation was not filed within limitation. The period of limitation is two years from the date of the death as prescribed under Section 10 of the Act of 1923. The Commissioner can entertain the claim under his discretion even on filing the same barred by the prescribed limitation. In the case in hand, no application for condonation of delay was filed and no reason for delay was assigned by the appellants.
The death occurred on 13/03/2012, whereas the application submitted before the respondents for the first time on 23/10/2017 and the claim petition was filed under Section 12 of the Act on 20/07/2018. In the absence of any prayer for condonation of delay and in the absence of any reason available on record to consider for condoning the delay, the Commissioner has not committed any error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of delay. The judgments relied by counsel for the appellants are not helpful to the appellants, as the judgments are distinguishable on facts.
In view of this Court, the Commissioner has not committed any error. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner is just and proper. No interference is warranted in appellate jurisdiction. No substantial question of law is involved in this case. Consequently, the admissions is declined. The appeal is dismissed.
Let the record of the Commissioner be returned along with copy of this order.