BAWA SINGH Vs. AVTAR SINGH JOHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been directed against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act dated 27. 7. 1991 dismissing the application for condonation of delay, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed primarily on two grounds. In the first instance it has been found that the application for condonation of delay was not filed in Jalandhar Court with the original application and secondly the Commissioner seems to think that since no notice was issued within the meaning and ambit of Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, no case for condoning the delay has been made out as the application has not been filed within two years of the accident.

(2.) I have perused the order and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my considered view the impugned order is unsustainable, both in low and in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the first instance, the facts be noticed. The application under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act was filed before the Commissioner, Jalandhar on 20. 8. 1986. The petitioner has stated in his petition that Karnail Singh had died 31. 1. 1984. In other words, the application was barred by about seven months. Latter on, when it was found that Court at Jalandhar had no jurisdiction, it was taken back and was presented to the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act at Hoshiarpur on 16. 8. 1986. An application dated 20. 9. 1986 for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was placed on record with an affidavit of Bawa Singh. No doubt, the application for condonation of delay was filed on 6. 8. 1986 but it was stated in so many words that the application was drafted for presentation with the main petition before Jalandhar Court, but inadvertently it remained in the brief of the counsel. In view thereof non-filing of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, along with the application, is not material. The applicant has stated on oath in so many words that he kept on going to the Insurance Company and the officers had been telling him that the claim of the petitioner would be settled " The counsel for the respondents could not direct any cross examination against the petitioner to the effect that he was telling a lie and that he did not go to the Insurance Company. This statement of the petitioner cannot be disbelived. Nothing has come on record of the case that even the employer had ever informed the Insurance Company about the death of the petitioner's son. The delay can always be condoned by the Commissioner as has been held in Mangal Chand v. Forest Department 1985 A. C. J. 8. M/s. N. Pochiah and Co. v. Mulle Nagabhushanam A. I. R. 1966 A. P. 90, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Anand Kanwar and Ors. , 1988 A. C. J. 1051. and Sivam v. Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. Trichur 1987 A. C. J. 242.

(3.) LEAVING aside the case law, cited by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to adopt a liberal attitude as regards condonation of delay is concerned. It has been held in Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and others v. Mst Katiji and Ors. , A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 1353, that a litigant does not stand to benefit by filing a time barred matter. In this case, the petitioner who is stated to be of 85 years old and whose only son has died, would not have surely been -benefited in delaying the institution of the claim application as he would need the money very badly.