The liberal construction of labour statutes in favor of employees and the consideration of disability and timely knowledge in condoning the delay in filing the claim petition.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the `EC Act'), the appellant/Insurance Company has assailed order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation in Case No.EC-18/SWD/2016/11542-44, whereby it has been directed to deposit compensation amount of Rs.4,99,152/- alongwith simple interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realization.

2. The facts, as available on record, are that a claim petition was filed on behalf of respondent No.1/claimant, stating that while being employed with respondent No.2 as a driver on truck bearing No.HR-47A-5844 (owned by respondent No.2), he had met with an accident on 03.07.2000. While he suffered injuries, the second driver had died on the spot. The claim petition was allowed vide order dated 18.05.2016 and a compensation of Rs.4,99,152/- alongwith simple interest @ 12% p.a. awarded to the claimant.

The said order was challenged before this Court by way of an appeal bearing FAO No.353/2016. Considering that the order dated 18.05.2016 was silent on the aspect of condonation of delay, the matter was remanded back to the learned Commissioner by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2017, to pass a reasoned judgment on whether or not delay in filing the claim petition ought to be condoned. The order dated 24.05.2017 passed by this Court in FAO No.353/2016 was not challenged by the appellant. Eventually, the concerned Commissioner passed the impugned order observing that the application for condonation of delay filed by the claimant deserved to be allowed.

3. Mr. S.P. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that despite specific directions by this Court to pass a reasoned order, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation is bereft of any reason.

4. Mr. Chandan Prajapati, learned counsel for LRs of respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that the impugned order is a well-reasoned order and deserves to be sustained. It was contended that the appellant had become aware of the accident in question when a claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was allowed in favour of the dependants of a second driver accompanying the claimant, who had succumbed to his injuries. In support of the contention that the claimant's right to compensation had crystallised on the date of the accident, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Another reported as (1976) 1 SCC 289.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.

6. At the outset, it is noted that in view of order dated 24.05.2017 passed by this Court in FAO 353/2016, the issue in the present case is limited to examining as to whether the learned Commissioner recorded a reasoned finding in the impugned order on the aspect of claimant disclosing sufficient cause for not filing the claim petition in due time.

7. Pertinently, the accident in question had taken place in the year 2000. Though an FIR was registered on the date of the accident, the claim petition came to be filed in the year 2013 i.e. after a gap of 12 years 9 months and 20 days. This delay of almost 13 years in filing the claim petition is to be seen in light of the fifth proviso of Section 10(1) of the EC Act. Section 10 of the EC Act reads as under:

"10. Notice and claim. - (1) No claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner hereinafter provided as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or in case of death, within two years from the date of death:

xxx

Provided further that the Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not be