AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.Govindarajulu
The respondent no. 2 in WCA. 9/2005 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Subdivision II Belgaum is the appellant. The parties will be referred according to their ranking before the Commissioner for convenience.
The facts necessary for the consideration of the appeal are as under:
The case of the claimant is that he was working as a driver belonging to respondent no. 2 Smt. Surinder Kaur. While so working on 15.9.1994, he was driving the truck bearing registration number CNB 6145 from Bangalore to Hubli. At about 4.30 a.m., he was near Chitradurga, then the truck has dashed against another lorry bearing no. 6537, it resulted in accidental injuries so seek for compensation.
The claim application in regard to the accident dated 15.9.1994, is filed on 4.1.2005. So, the Insurance Company contended that the delay cannot be condoned, as the statute does not provide a right with the Commissioner to condone the delay. Also call upon the claimant to prove the accident, its impact plead for dismissal of the claim application.
The Commissioner has recorded evidence found perforation of stomach on account of Hernia, fixed compensation at Rs. 73,483/-, directed the Insurance Company herein to pay the compensation after 30 days of the passing of the award.
The learned Advocate for the Insurance Company contend that the provisions of the Workmen''s Compensation Act do not confer any power on the Commissioner to condone the delay muchless for an accident of 1994 and the wage taken is on the higher side, so seek for setting aside the order.
The learned Advocate for the claimant placing reliance on the summary sheet of the Government Hospitals contend that the injured has received very serious injuries on the abdomen. The medical records of KMC Hubli have been produced which probablize the accident pleaded by the claimant. So, there is no reason to dislodge the claim for his ignorance of law that too when the Court is considering a social welfare legislation like Workmen''s Compensation Act. So supports the finding. The material documents would show that as on the date of the accident, the vehicle had been insured with the appellant. The first submission of the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company is that after a long lapse of ten years, the complainant cannot be permitted to file a claim application. It is true that general law of the land have to be considered as aground for judging the case of the party. This principle is helpful to the extent to find out the mala fides or otherwise of the action of a party but in the facts of the case Ex.R. 21 being a policy copy, it probablize the company having maintained records, so the delay in filing has not caused any injustice to the Company. Further, the medical records Exs. P6 to 8 along with the positive photos produced would show a surgery is done to the stomach. The claimant was in-patient for nearly 2 1/2 years. Further, the Legislation is a social welfare legislation and the Commissioner has not directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation from the date of accident or 30 days after the accident but has directed to pay the compensation after 30 days of the award. So looking from any angle, the assertion that the delay has resulted in injustice to the Insurance Company is without any merit. So also, the submission that in the year 1994, the wage at Rs. 2,000/- per month is not on higher side, as the claimant is a skilled worker i.e., a driver, so the second submission also is liable to be rejected. The appeal is without any merit and is dismissed.
The amount in deposit be transferred to Commissioner for payment.