ABDUL KARIM Vs. EASTERN BENGAL RY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of Mr. Blank, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bengal, dated 28 September 1931, on an application under Section 22, Workmen's Compensation Act, preferred by the appellant Abdul Karim. Upon the application there are endorsed by the Commissioner, first a note in which he writes "where is the reasonable cause from 11 March till date" and below his order: "Pleader states he has no further cause to show. Claim dismissed as not maintainable under Section 10(1) of the Act," both dated 28 September 1931. The question to be decided is whether or not the application was barred by limitation which appears to have been the view which the Commissioner took under the section specified by him. Section 10(1) of the Act is as follows: No proceedings for the recovery of compensation shall be maintainable before a commissioner unless ...... the claim for compensation with respect to such an accident has been instituted within six months of the occurrence of the accident or in the case of death, within six months from the date of death.

(2.) Then there is a proviso that: the commissioner may admit and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given, or the claim has not been instituted, in the due time as provided in this sub-section if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or institute the claim, as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause.

(3.) This section appears to have been, taken from the English Statute. Section 14, English Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925 provides as follows: Proceedings for the recovery under this Act for compensation for an injury shall not be maintainable unless .... the claim for compensation with respect to such accident has been made within six months from the occurrence of the accident, etc.,