NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. MOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 30.03.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Amritsar-I, whereby, the claim petition as preferred by respondents 1 and 2 herein, has been allowed granting compensation amounting to Rs. 4,39,900/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the claim application and if the compensation alongwith interest accrued thereon is not deposited within 45 days of the award, the rate of interest shall be 18% per annum.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claim petition was itself not maintainable as the same is barred by limitation as also by principle of res judicata. He further contends that respondents No.1 and 2 had earlier preferred a claim petition in the year 2007 which was withdrawn by them and an order to that effect was passed by the Commissioner on 24.04.2009 (Ex.RX). He contends that no permission has been granted for filing the fresh petition. He, however, contends that the petition which has been preferred in the year 2007 is also barred by limitation as the accident had taken place on 07.03.2004 and the limitation to file the claim was upto 07.03.2006. He, thus, contends that the claim petition, firstly being barred by limitation and secondly, barred by the principle of res judicata, would not be maintainable and the award, therefore, cannot sustain. In support of this assertion, he places reliance upon the Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1923 Act'). Prayer has, thus, been made for setting aside the impugned award and allowing the present appeal by dismissing the claim petition.

(3.) Counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, contends that in the earlier claim petition, which has been filed, permission was sought for filing the fresh petition. The intention of the Commissioner appears to accept that prayer although there is no specific mention with regard to the grant of permission but keeping in view the statement of the claimants, the order has to be seen in that context and therefore, the second petition cannot be said to be barred by the principle of res judicata. He further contends that once a permission has been granted to file the fresh petition vide order dated 24.04.2009 and the second claim petition was filed on 17.07.2009, the said petition could not be said to be beyond limitation. He, thus, prays that the impugned award deserves to be upheld.