1. Claim for compensation under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 — Accident — Delay in filing claim — Issue of limitation under Section 10. (Para 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 171
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
UMESH CHANDRA ROUTRAY – Petitioner
Versus
THE LEGAL MANAGER, M/S IFFCO – TOKIA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2447 OF 2023)
Decided On : 22-01-2025
Important Points
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 grounds.
Subject
Compensation Law - Employees Compensation
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 10 - Claim for compensation filed beyond two years of the accident - High Court opined claim barred by limitation - Commissioner had not considered limitation issue - Court remanded matter for consideration of condonation of delay. (Paras 3, 6)
(B) Limitation - The last proviso to Section 10 allows the Commissioner to decide claims despite delay - No limitation objection raised at the time of filing claim. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, an auto-rickshaw driver, suffered injuries in an accident on 05.10.2010 and filed a claim for compensation, which was initially granted by the Commissioner without addressing the limitation issue raised by the insurance company in appeal.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to set aside the Commissioner's order solely on limitation grounds was incorrect; the matter should have been remanded for consideration of condonation of delay.
Issues: Whether the delayed filing of the claim can be condoned under the last proviso to Section 10 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Commissioner must consider the claimant's request for condonation of delay, as the limitation objection was not raised at the time of filing the claim.
Result: Appeal allowed; matter remanded for consideration of condonation of delay.
(B) Limitation - The last proviso to Section 10 allows the Commissioner to decide claims despite delay - No limitation objection raised at the time of filing claim. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, an auto-rickshaw driver, suffered injuries in an accident on 05.10.2010 and filed a claim for compensation, which was initially granted by the Commissioner without addressing the limitation issue raised by the insurance company in appeal.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to set aside the Commissioner's order solely on limitation grounds was incorrect; the matter should have been remanded for consideration of condonation of delay.
Issues: Whether the delayed filing of the claim can be condoned under the last proviso to Section 10 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Commissioner must consider the claimant's request for condonation of delay, as the limitation objection was not raised at the time of filing the claim.
Result: Appeal allowed; matter remanded for consideration of condonation of delay.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Avijit Patnaik, Adv., Mrs. Shuvra Mohapatra, Adv., Aditya Narayan Das, Adv., Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Suyash Vyas, Adv., Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Avijit Patnaik, Adv., Mrs. Shuvra Mohapatra, Adv., Aditya Narayan Das, Adv., Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Suyash Vyas, Adv., Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Commissioner possesses power under the proviso to Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act to condone delay in filing a compensation claim. (Para 4 )
3. The Commissioner must be afforded the opportunity to consider whether delayed filing can be condoned before an award is set aside solely on limitation grounds. (Para 6 )
4. When an award is set aside solely on limitation, the matter should be remanded to the original forum to determine if the delay can be condoned. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court and Commissioner's orders set aside — Remanded to Commissioner to decide on condonation of limitation and subsequently on merits. (Para 7 )
6. Does the Commissioner have the power to entertain a claim filed after the stipulated period under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923?
Yes, the last proviso to Section 10 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to decide any claim for compensation even if it was not preferred within the stipulated time. (Para 4 )
7. What is the proper legal remedy when a High Court sets aside a compensation award solely due to the claim being barred by limitation?
The matter should be remanded to the original forum to allow the claimant to explain the delay and enable the Commissioner to decide if the period of limitation can be condoned. (Para 6 )
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 an auto-rickshaw driver and his vehicle met with the accident on 05.10.2010. The autodriver, aged about 34 years, suffered multiple injuries and he filed the claim for compensation which was registered as E.C. Case No. 37-D/2014. No limitation objection was raised at the time when claim was filed and therefore the appellant had no occasion to explain the delayed preference of the claim. The Commissioner also therefore had no occasion to consider any possible explanation, in order to invoke his powers, as provided in the proviso to Section 10 of the Act.
6. As the High Court had set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, only on the ground of the claim having been filed beyond the period of limitation, we are of the view that the issue as to whether the delayed filing can be condoned, is an aspect, which needs to be considered by the Commissioner by affording opportunity to the claimant. With the conclusion that was reached by the High Court, the matter should have been remanded back to the original forum instead of setting aside the Award, on the ground of limitation.
7. In view of the foregoing, we allow this appeal by setting aside the order dated 25.08.2022 in the FAO No. 18 of 2022. The order of the Commissioner, Employees Compensation is also set aside with further direction to the original authority to first decide whether the claimant is entitled to condonation of the period of limitation. For this purpose, application for condonation is permitted to be filed by the claimant within eight weeks from today and objection thereto, if any, is permitted to be filed by the insurance company within four weeks thereafter. However, all contentions are kept open. The Commissioner should then decide the matter on merit. It is ordered accordingly.
