Sri Sunil Chandra Deb vs State of Tripura

Mr. Deepak Gupta, C.J. (ORAL)—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2nd April, 2008 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen�s Compensation, North Tripura, Kailashahar whereby he dismissed the application filed for restoration of the claim petition.

Normally, in a case arising out of the Workmen�s Compensation Act, 1923 (now renamed as Employees Compensation Act, 1923) or in a case arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation, this Court is very liberal in taking a view in favour of the claimants. At the same time the liberal attitude of the Court cannot be abused by litigants who try to subvert the judicial process or by litigants who try to go forum hunting.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that according to the claimants, they lost their son Samiron Deb on 11th November, 2000 while he was performing his duties as workman for drilling of deep tube well at Sripur under Sub-Division of Dharmanagar, North Tripura. A petition being TS(W/C) No.02 of 2001 for grant of compensation was filed before the Commissioner, Workmen�s Compensation at Kailashahar. This petition was pending and during the pendency of the petition without withdrawing this petition the petitioners filed another petition under the Workmen�s Compensation Act in the Court of the Commissioner, Workmen�s Compensation, Agartala. They were fully aware that they had earlier filed a petition before the Commissioner, Workmen�s Compensation, North Tripura at Kailashahar but despite that they filed another petition in the Court of the Commissioner, Workmen�s Compensation at Agartala.

In the claim petition filed at Agartala it was mentioned that the husband i.e. father of the deceased had filed a case before the learned Commissioner, Workmen�s Compensation, North Tripura, Kailashahar in which there was a proposal by the contractor to settle the matter but no settlement could finally be reached. Thereafter it was mentioned as follows : "Hence the Applicant and her husband has no confidence for the said claim case T.S(WC)2/2001 before the Learned Commissioner for Workmen�s Compensation, (District Judge), North Tripura, Kailashahar and her husband will not proceed with the said claim case further. Accordingly the aforesaid claim case will be dismissed for non-prosecution." Therefore, the petitioners knowing fully well that a claim petition had been filed at Kailashahar filed another claim petition at Agartala and mentioned in the claim petition itself that they will get their petition at Kailashahar dismissed for non-prosecution.

They were represented by a counsel at Agartala also and obviously this petition has been drafted by a counsel. One glaring error is that a false statement was made in this petition. The petition at Kailasahar was filed not only by the father but both by the father and the mother. An impression was tried to be created in the mind of the Commissioner at Agartala that only the father had filed the claim petition at Kailashahar and now the mother was filing a separate claim petition along with the father at Agartala. This was a total false statement made. In any event the learned Commissioner, Workmen�s Compensation, Agartala dismissed the second claim petition as being not maintainable on 15th January, 2005. Both the petitioners are shown to be residents of Dhalai District. Therefore, only the Commissioner, Workmen�s Compensation at Kailashshar had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Even after the petition was rejected by the Court at Agartala no steps were taken for immediately approaching the Court at Dharmanagar and an application was filed almost 2 years later on 26th April, 2007. No doubt the delay has been condoned but this clearly shows the manner in which the petitioners have been behaving in the case.

After the claim petition at Agartala was filed the claim petition filed at Kailashahar was dismissed when the counsel for the claimants informed the Court that despite his repeated letters and communications sent to the claimants they were not contacted him and therefore, he stated that he had no instruction and the petition be dismissed. There was no evidence on record to deal with the matter. Even after the revision petition was filed the matter was dismissed in default on 31st May, 2014 and the application for restoration was filed only on 14th October, 2015. The explanation given is that the counsel missed the case in the list. Even if a counsel misses the case in the Cause List it is expected that after a month or two months or three months a counsel will try to find out what is happening to the cases and this case was one of the oldest cases pending and the entire Bar was aware that this Court was taking up old matters first.

I am not going into this question to decide whether the delay should be condoned in filing the application for restoration of revision petition but I am highlighting this fact to show the manner in which these litigants have been conducting themselves right from the beginning. They have dis-entitled themselves to get any relief from the Court because they have behaved in a manner which clearly shows that they have no respect for the rule of law and they tried to subvert the judicial process not once but more than once.

Another aspect of the matter is that in the claim petition filed under the Workmen�s Compensation Act, 1923 there is no clear cut averment that the claimants who are the mother and father of the deceased were partly or wholly dependent on the deceased. Under Section 2(d) of the Workmen�s Compensation Act, 1923 it is only dependants who are entitled to file a claim petition and not legal heirs. A widowed mother, a widow, a minor son or an unmarried daughter can file a claim petition without showing that they were dependent on the deceased but if any other legal heir wants to file a claim petition he must allege and prove that he was dependent upon the deceased. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.