LAWS(KAR)-2010-10-59

DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GOVINDAPPA

Decided On October 18, 2010
DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Appellant
V/S
GOVINDAPPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are by the insurer questioning the correctness and legality of the order and awards passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division No. 2, Bellary in WCA Nos. 581/2000 and 110/2000.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to filing of these appeals are as under:- The respondents herein filed claim petitions under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') seeking compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- and Rs. 1,75,000/- respectively. It was contended by claimants that they were working as loaders in a lorry bearing registration No. MEK/9559 and when they were proceeding in the said lorry on 21. 02.1994 during the course of their employment, it met with an accident, on account of which they sustained grievous injuries and as such, they sought for award of compensation.

(3.) SRI. A.G. Jadav appearing on behalf of the insurer would contend that the claim petitions were not maintainable since they were barred by limitation on the ground that the accident in question took place on 21.02.1994 and claim petitions came to be filed on 10.05.2000 i.e., after a lapse of six years. He would contend that there are no averments made in the claim petition seeking condonation of delay nor any application was filed seeking condonation of delay and as such, under Section 10 of the Act, the claim petitions are barred by limitation and claim petitions are liable to be dismissed. He would also claim petitions are liable to be dismissed. He would also contend that 1st Respondent herein who is the claimant, had filed a complaint before jurisdictional police, and has specifically stated that she was an employee of NMDC Company and was waiting for conveyance and boarded the offending lorry to reach Thoranagal and hence, the claim petition was not maintainable. He would also submit that there was not relationship of employer and employee between claimants and 1st Respondent and as such, he sought for dismissal of claim petitions.