Discretion exercised by the Commissioner in entertaining delayed compensation claims upheld; interest granted from claim filing date.

J U D G M E N T

2^nd opposite party in W.C.No.95 of 2001 on the file of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kozhikode has filed this appeal. The 1^st respondent approached the Commissioner claiming compensation for personal injury sustained by him allegedly on 25.06.1995 while he was working as conductor in a bus owned and operated by the 3^rd respondent. According to the 1^st respondent, on 25.06.1995, when the bus reached Naduvattam, it hit on a tree and in the accident, he sustained serious injuries. He was treated as an inpatient for three days in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. He stated that the accident occurred at about 8.30 p.m. The injuries sustained are (a) lacerated wound scalp, (b) lacerated wound dorsum of foot and (c) Lacerated wound at left side back of chest. He claimed that his monthly salary was Rs.6000/- at the time of accident and sought a compensation of Rs.1 lakh.

2. The appellant resisted the claim. It was contended by the appellant that there was inordinate delay on the part of the 1^st respondent in approaching the Commissioner. The monthly wages claimed by the 1^st respondent was also disputed. It was further contended that the injuries sustained were minor and there was no loss of earning.

3. During trial, the 1^st respondent was examined as AW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on his side. Ext.A6 was marked subject to proof. No evidence was adduced by opposite parties. The learned Commissioner concluded that there was employer employee relationship and the 1^st respondent sustained injuries during the course of employment. It was also found that the accident arose out of the employment. The learned Commissioner finally concluded that the 1^st respondent was entitled for a compensation of Rs.7,000/-. Since the insurance coverage was admitted by the appellant, it was directed that the appellant shall pay the compensation. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident was also granted.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent. None appeared for respondents 2 and 3.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that two substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. He contended that the accident occurred in the year 1995 and however the application for compensation was filed only in the year 2001. He submitted that under such circumstances, the Commissioner went wrong in entertaining the application. The second legal issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to granting of interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent on the other hand submitted that no interference is warranted in the impugned order as a meagre amount of Rs.7000/- was granted as compensation. He pointed out that the accident is proved and no further evidence was required in the matter to convince the Commissioner regarding the entitlement of the 1^st respondent for compensation.

6. Regarding the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that the learned Commissioner entertained the application despite the same being filed after a period of more than five years from the date of accident. Since the learned Commissioner has exercised his discretion in the matter of entertaining the application after a period of five years and as no cogent reasons have been pointed out to interfere with the discretionary decision taken by the Commissioner, no interference is called for in this appeal.

7. Regarding the second question of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, I find that the judgment in Venugopalan v. Cheeni Packaging [ 2024 (1) KLT 94 ] relied on by