JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

CM APPL. 1748/2023 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 1747/2023 (Delay)

1. By way of present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 16days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 16 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

3. The application stands disposed of.

FAO 10/2023 and CM APPL. 1746/2023 (Stay)

1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘EC Act’), the appellant (respondent No. 2 below) seeks setting aside of order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation(North-West District) in Case No.ECD/82/NW/2021/4147-49, whereby the claim petition filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1-6/claimants was allowed and the appellant directed to deposit compensation amount of Rs.12,93,900/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of accident i.e., 08.06.2021 till its realization, funeral expenses of Rs.5,000/- and the penalty amount of Rs.2,58,780/- within thirty days of passing of the order.

2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present appeal, are that the claimants (being the wife, children and mother of the deceased) had filed a claim petition under Sections 3 and 10 of the EC Act, stating that deceased/Sh. Jitender Yadav aged 44 years was working as a driver with respondent No.7 and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-since the year 2016. He used to drive a Light Goods Carrier Vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1LX-1668 owned by respondent No.7, which was duly insured with the appellant vide policy No.2227013120P102893354(valid from 28.06.2020 to 27.06.2021).

It was claimed that on 08.06.2021, while the deceased was driving under the employment of respondent No.7, the vehicle was hit on the rear side by some unknown vehicle at about 5:00 a.m., which could not be traced/identified. The accident occurred at Eastern Peripheral Expressway above Ratol underpass at Baghpat within the jurisdiction of P.S. Khekra, Bhagpat, Uttar Pradesh. An FIR bearing No.236/2021under Sections 279/304-A/427 IPC was registered at Police Station Khekra, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh on 08.06.2021.

3. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has disputed the jurisdiction of the learned Commissioner in dealing with the claim petition, by contending that neither the claimants were residents of Delhi nor the accident occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Courts in Delhi.

Learned counsel further contended that the learned Commissioner erred in imposing a penalty @ 20% of the compensation amount. In this regard, he submitted that as the compensation amount was deposited on 29.09.2022 i.e., within one month of the date of passing of the impugned order, no penalty under Section 4-A(3) of the EC Act could have been imposed upon the appellant. Besides these contentions, no other contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant.

4. There is no gainsaying that labour statutes such as the EC Act constitute ‘beneficial legislation for the welfare of workmen and should be liberally construed in their favour. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Jaya Biswal and Others v. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Another reported as (2016) 11 SCC 201 has opined as under:-

“20.The EC Act is a welfare legislation enacted to secure compensation to the poor workmen who suffer from injuries at their place of work. This becomes clear from a perusal of the preamble of the Act which reads as under:

“An Act to provide for the payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen of compensation for injury by accident.”

This further becomes clear from a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, which reads as under:

“…The growing