PUKHRAJ MANTRI Vs. RAJJO & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil misc. appeal has come up for consideration on the application filed by the appellant-applicant seeking condonation of delay about 1225 days occurred in filing the appeal. The short facts are that the respondent Nos.1 & 2, the claimants had filed the claim petition/application under Section 10 of Workman Compensation Act against the present appellant and the respondent No.3, alleging interalia that the appellant was the owner of the bus bearing No.RJ-27/P-4855, which was insured with the respondent No.3-insurance company. It was also alleged that the deceased Brajkishore was working as the conductor on the said vehicle and on 12.03.2008, the claimants were informed that the said Brajkishore had sinked in the river while taking bath at the Narmada Canal. The Commissioner vide the award dated 29.06.2011 exonerated the respondent No.3- Insurance Company, and directed that the appellant, who was the claimant No.1 in the claim petition to pay the compensation to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 as directed therein.

(2.) It appears that the appellant-applicant having failed to deposit the amount as directed in the award, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 claimants had filed the execution proceedings, and according to the appellant, he came to know about the said award dated 29.06.2011 only on 15.10.2012. It is further case of the appellant that thereafter he filed the review application before the Workman Compensation Commissioner, which is still pending. In the meantime, the appellant challenged the said award by filing the writ petition being No.9470/2014. Pending the said writ petition, appellant filed the present appeal on 05.01.2015. The appellant unconditionally withdrew the said writ petition, which was permitted by the Court vide the order dated 25.05.2015. There being delay of more than 1200 days in filing the present appeal, the appellant has filed the application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) Placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in cases of Manoharan vs. Sivrajan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.10581/2013), The Special Tehsildar, Land vs. K. V. Ayisumma, 1996 7 JT 204 and in case of State of Haryana Versus Chandra Mani & Ors., 1996 3 SCC 132, the learned counsel Mr. J.R. Tantia for the appellant has submitted that the delay occurred in filing the appeal should be condoned, to subserve the interest of Justice. According to Mr. Tantia, the Commissioner has misinterpreted the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Mallikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2009 AIR(SC) 2019, while exonerating the insurance company and fixing the liability on the appellant owner of the vehicle.