The importance of filing claims within the limitation period, the necessity of showing sufficient cause for any delay, the requirement of framing proper issues, and the significance of clear and relevant medical evidence in assessing claims.

1. - This appeal under section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.2.91 passed by Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Bikaner (for short 'the Commissioner') whereby the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 17,481.44 and directed to deposit the same within sixty days from the date of the judgment, falling which the awarded amount shall carry Interest @ 15% p.a. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the employer Assistant Engineer (Rural Electrification) (for short 'the employer') filed the instant appeal.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and award impugned as also the material available.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant employer that the respondent sustained personal injuries due to the accident out of and in the course of employment on 1.7.77 while attending a complaint of a consumer for jumper-tightening on the electrical pole at village Talanpur, met with an accident and received electric shock. As a result of electric shock, the respondent workman. (for short 'the workman') fell down and sustained injuries. He was treated in the hospital and on 8.7.77, after about a period of one month, he resumed his duty and since then he has been continuously on duty with the employer. The workman filed a claim for compensation before the Commissioner on 1.7.88, i.e. after a lapse of period of 11 years. The claim was not accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay.

4. Obviously, the claim filed by the workman was time- barred. Section 10(1) of the Act envisages that 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/accident or, in case of death, within two years from the date of death. Fifth proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act provides further that the Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given, or the claim has not been preferred, in due time as provided in this sub-section, if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or prefer the claim, as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause and, therefore, the learned counsel contended that in the instant case, the period of limitation provided by the Act is two years from the date of the accident to file the claim for compensation and if it is preferred beyond the period of two years, then it is for the workman to seek condonation of delay by filing an application showing sufficient cause by which the workman was prevented to file the claim within the period of limitation provided by the Act.

5. In the instant case, according to the learned counsel for the employer, neither the claim was filed within the period of limitation nor the application seeking condonation of delay was filed showing sufficient cause. He further contended that the Commissioner also has not reached to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause preventing the workman to file the claim within the period of limitation. The claim was filed after 11 years from the date of occurrence which has resulted in inordinate delay of 9 years, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant, does not deserve to be condoned.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the employer filed the written statement to the claim case before the Commissioner and seriously disputed the claim by joining various issues, therefore, the parties were at various and joined the issues. It was incumbent for the Commissioner to frame proper issues before the trial of the case proceeded and undisputedly, in the instant case, the learned Commissioner filed to frame proper issue on which the parties were at variance