Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Balvinder Kaur And Others on 22 December, 2009
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
FAO No. 5816 of 2009 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
FAO No. 5816 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 22.12.2009
State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants
vs
Balvinder Kaur and others .... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana,
for the appellants.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the Commissioner, under Workmen's Compensation Act, Hisar, awarding a sum of Rs. 8,55,020/- as compensation and interest to the respondents on account of death of Sukhvinder Singh, husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondents no. 2 and 3.
Brief facts of the case are that deceased Sukhvinder Singh was employed as driver with Haryana Roadways. On 24.1.1999, when he was going from Sirsa to Fazlika by driving Bus No. HR-39-4820, the bus struck with another bus No. PB-4C-9566 as a result of which he died due to the injuries sustained by him. The respondents earlier filed claim petition before the MACT, Hisar but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.1.2006. Thereafter, they filed the present claim petition with the Commissioner at Hisar, Their claim petition was accepted against which the present appeal is preferred by the State.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that claim filed by the respondents was time barred as in terms of the provisions of Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, "the Act") such an application could be filed within a period of two years.
After hearing the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. In the present case the facts regarding the employment of deceased Sukhvinder Singh, who died while on duty, is not in dispute. The dispute is sought to be raised on the issue that the claim petition filed by the respondents was not within time prescribed under Section 10 of the Act. However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondents had, in fact, earlier filed petition before the learned MACT, Hisar, which was FAO No. 5816 of 2009 -2- dismissed as withdrawn on 18.1.2006 with the permission to file the same before the learned Commissioner, which was filed immediately. Proviso to Section 10 (1)
(b) of the Act enables the Commissioner even to condone the delay if the application is not filed within time. The Commissioner in this case had exercised his jurisdiction having considering the facts of the present case and finding reasons to be sufficient to entertain an alleged delayed claim petition, which cannot be faulted with considering the fact that it is a beneficial piece of legislation and in terms of the provisions of the Act the family of the deceased is, in fact, entitled to the compensation under the Act and it was incumbent on the appellant to have paid the amount due to the respondents suo moto immediately on the death of the employee.
For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is dismissed. Since the main appeal is dismissed on merit, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is also dismissed.
22.12.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge