Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2931
DELHI HIGH COURT
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
New India Ass. Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Balbir Singh & Anr. - Resopndent
FAO No. 209/2006
Decided On : 27-05-2014
For the Appellant :Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Kamaldeep, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient cause in condoning delay under the Employee’s Compensation Act, emphasizing the potential consequences of routine condonation of delay.
Headnote:
Employee’s Compensation Act - Delay Condonation - Section 30 - 1923 - Summary: The court discussed the condonation of delay under Section 10(1) of the Act and emphasized the need for sufficient cause. It highlighted the lack of sufficient cause for condoning the delay of more than 20 years and the impact of setting a wrong precedent. The court also emphasized the importance of limitation periods and the potential consequences of routine condonation of delay. The judgment was set aside due to the lack of sufficient cause for condonation of the delay.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a driver, filed a claim petition under the Employee’s Compensation Act, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a 1982 accident. The Commissioner allowed the claim petition after condoning a 20-year delay. The appellant challenged the condonation of delay, arguing that no sufficient cause was shown.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay of more than 20 years. It emphasized the lack of necessary facts for condonation and the potential consequences of setting a wrong precedent for future cases.
Issues: The key issue was the condonation of a 20-year delay in filing the claim petition under the Employee’s Compensation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of sufficient cause for condoning the delay and the potential consequences of routine condonation of delay were crucial in setting aside the impugned judgment.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of the Commissioner was set aside. The appellant was granted liberty to seek restitution if the respondent had received any compensation.
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):--
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the impugned judgment of the Commissioner dated 7.7.2006 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein. Before allowing the petition on merits, the Commissioner has condoned delay of about 20 years in filing the petition.
2. On behalf of the appellant it is argued that no sufficient cause was shown for the Commissioner to condone the delay from 15.9.1982 to 17.12.2004 i.e the delay of more than 20 years. It is argued that the respondent No. 1/claimant did not plead the necessary facts for such a large delay of 20 years to be condoned. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that as per Section 10(1) of the Act period of limitation is two years for filing of claim petition after the accident, and no doubt there is provision for condonation of delay by showing sufficient cause, however, if delay of 20 years is condoned, especially when there is no sufficient cause, a wrong precedent will be set for all future cases.
3. The undisputed facts in this case are that respondent No. 1 was a driver on the truck owned by the respondent No. 2 herein. The truck met with an accident on 15.9.1982 at about 11.30 A.M. at Jaipur highway. The respondent No. 1 had in the year 1993, before filing the claim petition under the Employee’s Compensation Act, filed a compensation case before the State Commissioner under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This petition seeking compensation was dismissed by the State Commission on the grounds of limitation on 18.12.1994. Even the appeal which was filed by the respondent No. 1 was dismissed on 22.5.2002 though it was observed by the National Commission that the case of the respondent No. 1 can be considered sympathetically. This observation however was of no legal effect/binding for giving of compensation, because, the petition under the Consumer Protection Act was dismissed. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 27.5.2003 but withdrew the same on 16.12.2004 by praying for liberty to file the present petition under Employee’s Compensation Act. MACT allowed withdrawal of the petition with permission to file a petition under the Employee’s Compensation Act vide order dated 16.12.2004 and which reads as under:-
“16.12.2004
Present: Shri Kamal Deep, counsel for the petitioner with the Petitioner.
File taken up today on the application of the petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to pursue the petition before the Commissioner Workman’s Compensation on the ground that the petitioner who had sustained permanent disability is facing acute shortage of money. In the interest of justice, the application is allowed.
The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file the claim before the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation within three weeks. It is hoped that the petition will be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for petitioner.
MACT/16.12.2004”
4. Giving of liberty by the MACT in the order dated 16.12.2004 can in no manner be a ground for automatic entitlement of condonation of delay because observations of MACT of granting liberty was only to prevent an objection of an earlier case filed before MACT being not pursued for hearing a petition under the Act, and liberty granted by the MACT cannot be read as that the respondent No. 1 was bound to have his delay condoned in filing his case under the Act.
5. In order to appreciate the issue of limitation, let us turn to the application by which condonation of delay was sought. Since the application is a short one, the same is reproduced in its entirety as under:-
“APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC AND SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT AS AN ABUNDANT CAUTION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE PETITIO
