SUSHILA Vs. MAHENDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the appellant under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1235 days in filing this appeal. It is submitted that the appellant was prevented from filing the appeal within the period of limitation due to various reasons. The appellant was an illiterate lady. The Tribunal passed award on 4th April, 2006. However, this was not communicated to her by her counsel. She had also not been able to contact her counsel as her husband had died on 23rd March, 2007 and her children were minor at that time. Somehow elder son of the appellant met counsel on 20th February, 2008 after great efforts. In this meeting the counsel advised for filing an application under section 151 of CPC for modification of the award on the ground that disability certificate was not considered by the Tribunal for calculating the compensation. This application was filed on 22nd February, 2008. The application remained pending and was withdrawn on 8th September, 2009 on the advice of another counsel who told the applicant/appellant that Tribunal had no power to re-consider its own order. After withdrawal of that application, the present appeal was prepared and filed.

(2.) It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that at the time when proceedings of award were going on, the appellant was still undertaking treatment as it was a case of crushing of her leg and thereafter the husband of the appellant suddenly fell sick and died due to which the appellant again came under shock and could not contact her advocate and could not pay attention to her case. It was only in the year 2007 that the Doctor gave a 100% disability certificate to the appellant. She could not have produced this disability certificate before the Tribunal since when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, her treatment was not complete and the Doctor had asked her to wait for disability certificate. When she received the disability certificate, she moved an application before the Tribunal under wrong advice and guidance. She thereafter withdrew the application. It is submitted that there were cogent reasons for which appellant could not file appeal before the Court in time.

(3.) I consider that the reasons given by the appellant for not being able to file the appeal in time are genuine and cogent. It was obligatory for the Tribunal to hold an inquiry in the disability factor of the appellant. The Tribunal did not hold an inquiry in the disability factor of the appellant. The appellant later on received disability certificate showing her disability to the tune of 100 per cent. The appellant thereafter preferred an application, though under wrong advice, before the Tribunal and after withdrawal of the application, she filed this appeal. Under these circumstances, I consider that the reasons given by the appellant in her condonation of delay application are just and sufficient. The delay in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. The application stands disposed of.