An employee's compensation claim cannot be denied solely based on alcohol consumption without clear evidence of it influencing the accident, as per Section 3(1) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

CM APPL. 19849/2022 (Delay)

1. By way of the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants/claimants seek condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Mr. Anshuman Bal, learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased (Sh. Dalip Kumar), who unfortunately passed away in an accident on 07.11.2012. It is stated that though the impugned order was passed on 08.10.2021, however the present appeal could not be filed timely as the Registry was closed for physical filing at the relevant time.

3. This Court takes note of the fact that, vide order dated 23.09.2021 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 titled as In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, the Supreme Court has directed that for computing the period of limitation in suit, appeal, application or proceedings, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. The impugned order was passed on 08.10.2021. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the delay of 120 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

FAO 99/2022

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as `the Act') on behalf of the appellants impugning order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation in Case No. CWC/D/ED/03/2013/7044, whereby their claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of claimant No. 1's husband was dismissed.

5. Facts of the case, as emanate from the records are that appellant No. 1 i.e., wife of deceased Sh. Dalip Kumar, alongwith other legal heirs had preferred a petition claiming therein that the deceased was employed as a driver with respondent No. 2/Narinder Singh and during the course of his employment, while driving a vehicle bearing TSR No. DL-1RL-4343, he met with an accident on 07.11.2012 near Mayur Vihar Metro Station within the jurisdiction of Police Station Pandav Nagar, New Delhi. An FIR No. 491/2012 was registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar, whereafter post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at the GTB Hospital. It was further claimed that at the time of death, the deceased was about 34 years old and drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that the claimant failed to establish employee-employer relationship between the deceased and respondent No. 2 and thus the fatal injury cannot be held to occur during the course of employment. It also denied any liability to pay compensation on the ground that the deceased did not have a valid and effective license to drive a vehicle and that MLC conducted at the Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital indicated consumption of alcohol by the deceased at the time of driving the aforesaid TSR.

7. Initially, while referring to Section 3(1) of the Act, the claim petition was dismissed by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 30.11.2015 by observing that the deceased having been under influence of liquor at the time of occurrence, no claim for compensation could be entertained.

However, in appeal being FAO 413/2016, this Court vide judgment dated 18.12.2017 while observing that Section 3(1)(b) of the Act is not applicable to the accident in question as the case related to death and not injury, set aside the order dated 30.11.2015 and remanded back the matter to the learned