Punjab-Haryana High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Gian Chand And Others on 29 July, 2013
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 4489 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No. 111
Case No. : C. R. No. 4489 of 2013
Date of Decision : July 29, 2013
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .... Petitioner
Vs.
Gian Chand and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Insurer - respondent no.3 before the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act (in short - the Act) has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 06.11.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, thereby allowing application filed by the claimants (respondents no.1 and 2) for condonation of delay in filing their complaint under the Act before the Commissioner.
Claimants' son was employed as Driver of respondents no. 3 Monika 2013.07.29 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C. R. No. 4489 of 2013 2 and 4 herein (respondents no. 1 and 2 before the Commissioner) for their Van, which stood insured with the petitioner-insurer. Claimants' son allegedly died in the course of employment. The claimants earlier filed claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of their son. However, the said claim petition was withdrawn being not maintainable, with liberty to file complaint under the Act before the Commissioner. Accordingly, respondents no. 1 and 2 filed claim petition (Annexure P-1 Colly.) before the Commissioner along with application for condonation of delay in filing the same. Condonation of delay was sought on the ground of filing claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act on wrong advice of the counsel.
Petitioner-insurer, by filing reply (Annexure P-3), opposed the application for condonation of delay.
The Commissioner, vide order (Annexure P-4), has condoned the delay. Feeling aggrieved, insurer has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no sufficient ground for condoning the delay of almost four year in filing the claim petition before the Commissioner. The contention cannot be Monika 2013.07.29 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C. R. No. 4489 of 2013 3 accepted. The claimants are poor persons, who have lost their son. They filed claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, obviously as per advice of the counsel. However, later on, the counsel advised that the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. Accordingly, the said claim petition was withdrawn, with liberty to file claim petition before the Commissioner. Accordingly, claim petition before the Commissioner was filed.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the Commissioner has rightly condoned the delay in filing the claim petition. Impugned order of the Commissioner does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In fact, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the insurer should not have filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order of the Commissioner. In addition to it, even the instant revision petition has been filed almost eight months after the passing of the impugned order. The petitioner-insurer has vast paraphernalia at its command to take immediate steps, but it had taken nine months to file the revision petition, at the same time, frowning at the alleged delay of the claimants in filing the claim petition, although the claimants had sufficient ground for seeking condonation of the said delay, having earlier filed claim petition before the Monika 2013.07.29 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C. R. No. 4489 of 2013 4 wrong Forum, on wrong advice of the counsel.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
July 29, 2013 ( L. N. MITTAL )
monika JUDGE
Monika
2013.07.29 16:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh