RADHAMMA AND ORS. Vs. KRUPAKARI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Prasad P., learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Thejaswi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Harini Shivanand for 2nd respondent -insurer and cross -objector. The appeal is of the year 2011 and the cross -objection of the insurer is of the year 2012. It is the contention of Sri Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for claimant -workman that Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation committed a serious error in not considering the income of deceased at Rs. 6,000/ - p.m. which was also admitted by his employer and a suggestion to the said effect had also been made in the cross -examination of claimant -wife of deceased and as such, Commissioner ought to have considered the income of deceased at Rs. 6,000/ - p.m. and not Rs. 4,000/ - p.m. Hence, he prays for modifying the judgment and award passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. On this ground, he seeks for formulating the substantial question of law as formulated in the appeal memorandum and prays for answering the same in favour of claimants.

(2.) PER contra, Sri Thejaswi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Harini Shivanand would contend that Commissioner committed a serious error in not considering the fact that claim petition has been filed after 8 years from the date of death of 1st claimant's husband and delay had not been properly examined and as such, Commissioner could not have awarded any compensation to claimants at all. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that for no fault of cross -objector, it cannot be saddled with interest component for the delay period in the event of this Court coming to a conclusion that insurer is liable to indemnify the claim. He would also contend that Tribunal ought to have taken the age of deceased as reflected in Ex. P. 9 - driving licence and not the age of the deceased as reflected in the post -mortem report -Ex. P. 8. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration:

(3.) ON account of the employmental injuries sustained by deceased Yellappa, a claim petition under Section 10 of the Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923 came to be filed on 10 -11 -2008 by his dependants. Since the accident is of the year 2000 and claim having been filed in 2008, there was a delay of 8 years in filing the said claim petition. As such, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 also came to be filed along with the claim petition. Said delay has been condoned by the Commissioner on the ground that 1st claimant being the wife of deceased is a rustic village lady, not conversant with the worldly affairs and as such delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, delay has been condoned.