R S R T C Vs. ANAND KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the award made by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. Two contentions have been raised before me by the learned counsel for the appellant. His first contention is that the claim was barred by a long period of time and sufficient cause for the delay was not shown and therefore, the learned Commissioner should not have entertained the claim. His second contention is that in any case, the interest from the date of accident should not have been awarded on such a belated claim. Having given my careful consideration to these two contentions, I do not find substance in either of them in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the deceased was an employee of the appellant and that his death took place out of employment and on account of employment. The fact of the death of the employee was immediately known to the appellant admittedly. Under Rule 10, he should have reported the matter of the Commissioner : of course, in the circumstances of the case, I do not feel called upon to consider whether the word 'may' used in this rule is only directory or mandatory, but all the same, it does throw the burden on the employee to report the matter to the Commissioner. But in this case this was not done. The claimant is a widow, who has no issue and none else to look after her. She has slated that she had been moving from pillar to post in order to get the compensation and, ultimately, having failed to gel it at the hands of the employer, filed the claim.

(3.) LOOKING to all the circumstance's the discretion exercised by the learned Commissioner in condoning the delay, cannot be said to be improper or perverse. As a matter of fact, the satisfaction regarding delay must be of the Commissioner and this Court would not normally substitute its satisfaction for the satisfaction of the Commissioner and, therefore, no interference need be made with that part of the order and award.