G. SUBRAMANIAN Vs. VEDIYAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the finding of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, made in W.C. No. 168 of 1995, dated 2.12.1996, exonerating National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Bodinayakanur, Madurai District, the respondent No. 2 herein, from payment of compensation to the accident victim, on the ground that driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence for the offending vehicle and consequently, directing the opposite party No. 1, owner of the vehicle, to pay compensation of Rs. 94,780, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, the driver of the vehicle, an employee, has preferred this appeal and prayed for a direction against the insurance company to pay compensation to the victim.

(2.) Record of proceedings further shows that despite the appeal being listed before the Deputy Registrar, High Court, Madras, on various occasions, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and hence, the appeal came to be listed before this court on 10.12.2001. On the said date, since there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, this court was constrained to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Seeking condonation of delay of 3,261 days in filing the petition to set aside the order, dated 10.12.2001, made in the above appeal to restore the appeal and to dispose the same on merits, CM.P. No. 179 of 2011 has been filed.

(3.) In the supporting affidavit for condonation, the appellant has contended that when the appeal was listed for final hearing on 10.12.2001, the same was dismissed for default. According to him, the learned counsel for the appellant did not inform the respondent and that he came to know about the dismissal for non-prosecution only from the original authority. He has further stated that dismissal of the appeal for default has caused inexplicable agony and though he has suffered permanent disablement due to the accident, for which compensation has been quantified, the same could not be recovered. According to the appellant, for the fault committed by his advocate, his remedy to claim compensation from the insurer should not be denied. Hence, in the interest of justice, he has prayed for condonation of delay, to set aside the order dated 10.12.2001 and hear the appeal on merits.