AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satyen Vaidya, J
By way of instant petition, petitioners have assailed order dated 28.4.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge, Paonta Sahib, in CMA No. 82 of 2022, whereby the prayer of the petitioners to lead additional evidence has been rejected by the learned Commissioner.
Learned Commissioner, while holding proceedings under the Workmen Compensation Act is in the process of deciding an application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition on behalf of the petitioners on account of death of late Sh. Mohan Lal.
After hearing of the arguments by learned Commissioner, an application came to be moved on behalf of the petitioners under Section 151 CPC for additional evidence. By way of such application, a prayer has been made to examine petitioner No.1 and two other witnesses Babu Ram and Jai Dev. It is submitted in the application that though the aforesaid witnesses were present but could not be examined. The reason for examination of Babu Ram and Jai Dev as witnesses, as per petitioners, is that they had remained throughout with the deceased Mohan Lal during the period of his hospitalization after the alleged accident.
The prayer made on behalf of the petitioner was opposed and learned Commissioner rejected the same for the reasons that the application had been moved after hearing of the arguments and was after thought. It is also made out from the impugned order that the factum of accrual of valuable right in favour of respondents has also weighed with the learned Commissioner while rejecting the application.
Record reveals that the petitioners at the time of filing of the petition under Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act were minors. In such circumstances, the entire responsibility to look after the family after the unfortunate accident was of petitioner No.1.
Be that as it may, without adverting to the merits of the claim petition and reasons assigned for condonation of delay, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer of the petitioners can be allowed to the extent of petitioner No.1 to be examined as a witness in support of the claim petition of the petitioners for the simple reason that mere technicalities of procedural law should not be allowed to sit over the substantive rights of the parties. Procedural law is mere laud maid justice. As regards the other witnesses, no ground is made out.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the extent that the learned Commissioner is directed to allow the examination of petitioner No.-1 as a witness in application for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 4 of the Employees Compensaiton Act. It is further clarified that the petitioner No.1 shall be granted only one opportunity to examine herself before the learned Commissioner. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Commissioner on 26.5.2023, on which date, the learned Commissioner will fix the next date for examination of petitioner No.1.
The petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Records of learned Commissioner be immediately sent back.