The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 10(1) and Section 4(1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act in determining the limitation period for filing a claim and the amount of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned award rendered by the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Mandi, District Mandi, in Workmen Compensation Petition No. 40/2011 whereby on occurrence of demise of the son of the claimant during the course of his performing employment as a labourer under his employer respondents No. 2 and 3. he determined compensation vis.a.vis the claimant in the sum comprised therein.

2. This appeal was admitted on 7.12.2015 on the hereinfafter extracted substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the claim petition filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of two years after death of deceased workman, Sh. Bapi Das on 27.09.2003, was time barred and thus, did not deserve to be entertained?

2. Whether amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,45,000/- awarded to the claimant is legal and justified as per provisions of the Employee's compensation Act or on the basis of proved income of deceased and his age the claimant is entitled only to an amount of Rs.2,85,124/- alongwith interest.”

The learned counsel for the appellant has not concerted to repel the legality of the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner qua the demise of the deceased occurring during the course of his performing employment as a labourer under respondents No. 2 and 3. He also does not controvert the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner qua the claimant holding the capacity of a dependant of his deceased son.

3. Be that as it may, the substantial question of law occurring at Sr. No.1 stands enjoined to be adjudicated upon. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted qua with the demise of the son of the claimant occurring on 27.09.2003 whereas the apposite claim petition standing preferred on 29.10.2005 wherefrom he contends qua with the preferment of the apposite claim petition before the learned Commissioner occurring after more than two years elapsing since the demise of claimants' son renders attractable qua the claim petition the mandate of the provisions engrafted in Section 10 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, significantly when hence it evidently stood preferred therebefore beyond the statutorily prescribed period of limitation:-

“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.”

thereupon he canvasses qua the Commissioner standing statutorily barred to exercise jurisdiction upon the apposite claim petition reiteratedly when its preferment occurred after more than two years since the demise of a workman during the course of his performing employment under his employer. Apparently, the claim petition stood preferred by the claimant before the learned Commissioner with a minimal delay of one month occurring since elapse of the statutorily prescribed period of two years since the illfated demise of his son for thereupon rendering it to be maintainable. However, the rigour of the mandate of sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Act which stands extracted hereinabove stands relaxed by its proviso engrafted therein, which also stands extracted hereinafter

“Provided that, where the accident is the contracting of a disease in respect of which the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 are applicable, the accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the first of the days during which the workman was continuously absent from work in consequence of the disablement caused by the disease:

Provided further that in case of partial disablement due to the contracting of any such disease and which does not force the workman to absent himself from w