DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION NANDED Vs. DEELIP HARI MOGLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner whereby, compensation was awarded to respondent on account of the disability suffered by him while in the appellant's employment.

(2.) The respondent was working as a lineman with the appellant. On 16.5.1999, while he was performing duty at telephone pole, he fell down due to faulty telephone wire connection. He sustained injuries on both legs, chest and back side. He was treated as an indoor patient for about one month at Government Hospital, Nanded. He was required to take further treatment at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. He was unable to do his work and, therefore, was relieved from the job. He pleaded with the department for payment of compensation. A part of his medical expenditure was reimbursed. However, his demand for the compensation was not favourably considered. Hence, he filed application before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nanded. The learned Commissioner held that the workman sustained 100 per cent disability and was entitled to the compensation of Rs. 2,41,992 along with interest. The application was granted accordingly.

(3.) Mr. Sonawane, the learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the application was barred by limitation in view of provisions of section 10 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He further pointed out that no application was moved for delay condonation. He would submit that Limitation Act would be applicable and the application would come within the ambit of Article 137 of the Limitation Act. He seeks to rely on certain observations in Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhaliumma, AIR 1977 SC 282. He would further submit that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner committed serious error while omitting to frame necessary issue regarding the nature of disability and loss of earning capacity. He urged to allow the appeal. Per contra, learned advocate, Mr. S.S. Patil, would support the impugned judgment.