JUDGMENT :

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short “The Act”) against the impugned order in W.C/M.P.No.01 of 2009, dated 30.07.2010 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ongole (in short “The Commissioner”).

2. The appellant herein was the petitioner. The respondent No.1 herein was the owner. Respondent No.2 herein was the Insurance Company before the Learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the Learned Commissioner.

3. Case of the Petitioner:-

3.1. Petitioner worked as driver for the lorry of the 1st respondent. On intervening night of 28/29.06.2005 at about 4:00AM while carrying a load of granite stone for Hosur the tyres of the lorry burst near Pidugurala Narasaraopet Road. As a result, he lost control over the lorry and hit against a tree on the road margin.

3.2. Cleaner of the lorry admitted Petitioner into Narasaraopet Government Hospital. A crime has been registered by the police based on his statement. For better treatment he was shifted to Amaravathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Guntur and he underwent a surgery and his left leg and right leg toes were amputated.

3.3. Petitioner lost his livelihood and unable to work as lorry driver. He filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compensation. When the matter reached the stage of Arguments, he has not pressed the petition since it is not maintainable. Subsequently, he filed the application seeking to condone the delay of (352) days in filing the application before the Learned Commissioner.

4. Version of the Respondents: -

4.1. The 1st respondent/owner though represented through an Advocate did not choose to file any counter.

4.2. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter denying the material averments made in the application including age, wage, employment, accident and disablement to the applicant. Further contended that there is no sufficient reason to condone the delay in filing the application as the Petitioner has exhausted the remedy by filing the petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Enquiry and finding: -

5.1. During the course of enquiry Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were the documents marked.

5.2. After hearing both counsel, the Learned Commissioner dismissed the application after coming into a conclusion that the petitioner except saying that he filed a petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and having realized that it is not the proper forum, withdrew the case and filed the application before him, no sufficient reason is assigned for condoning the delay.

6. Grounds of Appeal:

Being aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner filed the present Appeal on the grounds that:

a) The Learned Commissioner ought to have condoned the delay in filing the application since the “The Act” is a beneficial piece of legislation.

b) He sustained injuries during the course of his employment. There is no inordinate delay but for he approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially.

c) He categorically narrated the facts which leads to the delay in approaching the Learned Commissioner. On consideration of the nature and gravity of the injuries, the Learned Commissioner ought to have entertained the petition.

7. Substantial Questions of Law:-

7.1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner is in conformity with the provisions of “The Act”?

7.2. Whether the provisions of “Th