Back
HRISHIKESH ROY, S. V. N. BHATTI
UMESH CHANDRA ROUTRAY – Appellant
Versus
LEGAL MANAGER, M/S IFFCO – TOKIA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Avijit Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The respondent Insurance Company is represented by Mr. Suyash Vyas, learned counsel.
3. The challenge here is to the order dated 25.08.2022 in the FAO No. 18 of 2022 of the High Court of Orissa whereunder, the Court opined that the claim filed by the appellant under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the “Act”) is barred by limitation, under Section 10 of the Act. But the said issue has not been dealt with by the Commissioner in his judgment dated 07.12.2021, while granting relief to the appellant. Accordingly, the claim application was held to be barred by limitation and not maintainable and the appeal of the insurance company stood allowed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant however refers to the last proviso to Section 10 of the Act to point out that although claim for compensation is required to be filed within two years of the accident, the Commissioner has ample power to decide any claim for compensation notwithstanding the fact that the claim, as required under Section 10(1), was not preferred within the stipulated time.
5. As can be noticed, the appellant was a
The Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act has the authority to condone delays in filing claims, necessitating consideration of such applications before dismissing claims on limitation gro....
Claimants must be allowed to explain delays in filing petitions under the Employee’s Compensation Act; dismissal on limitation without opportunity breaches judicial fairness.
An appeal under Section 30(1)(a) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is maintainable when the claim for compensation is disallowed in full, regardless of the reason for disallowance.
The court emphasized that failure to frame essential issues, particularly regarding limitation under Section 10 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, invalidates the judgment.
Relationship of employer and employee is a basic requirement to be fulfilled for claiming compensation under Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
The court established that valid fitness certificates are essential for determining liability in motor accident compensation cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
