IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO I.A.No.2 OF 2021 in/and C.M.A.No.348 of 2021 DATED THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between:

Smt. Madari Gangu and another … Petitioners/Appellants and Sri G. Gangaram and another ... Respondents/Respondents

COMMON ORDER

Heard M/s Azar Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Ch. Venkat Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The application vide I.A.No.2 of 2021 has been filed to condone the delay of 4141 days in filing the appeal assailing the order dated 10.09.2008 in W.C. Case No.4 of 2006 (F) passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad (hereinafter will be referred to as “Tribunal”).

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed W.C.Case No.4 of 2006 (F) before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation on account of death of one Sri Madari Muthyam, who met with an accident while driving the tractor bearing No.AP-25-H-4496 on 17.09.2002. The learned Commissioner, after due enquiry and examining all the facts of the case and the material on record, holding that the death occurred in the course of employment, has allowed the claim by granting a compensation of Rs.4,42,740/-. Aggrieved thereby, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimants with a delay of 4141 days.

4. The reasons assigned in the said application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the said delay is that they have requested their previous counsel, who appeared in the claim petition, to file cross objections in C.M.A No.484 of 2009 filed by respondent No.2-Insurance Company before this Hon’ble High Court against the order in W.C.Case No.4 of 2006 (F) by handing over all the records and they were under the impression that their previous counsel has filed the said cross objections. Recently, when they approached the office of the previous counsel, they came to know that previous counsel has expired few years ago and the said counsel did not file any cross-objections before this Court in CMA.No.484 of 2009. Thereafter, after collecting the documents from the office of the previous counsel, filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation against the order dated 10.09.2008 in W.C.Case No.4 of 2006 (F), as such there is a delay of 4141 days. However, pending adjudication of the underlying application, the appeal filed by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company in CMA.No.484 of 2009 was dismissed on 03.02.2023.

5. As seen from the above facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application I.A.No.2 of 2021, the delay is not properly explained and there is inordinate delay of 4141 days, at least the claimants ought to have shown proximate cause in preferring the appeal with such abnormal delay.

6. In Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by Legal Representatives & Others v. Speciay Deputy Collector (LA), (2024) 12 Supreme Court Cases 336, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that condonation of delay cannot be granted on equitable considerations or on grounds of hardship, and that a right or remedy not exercised or availed within the prescribed period or for a prolonged period, must come to an end or cease to exist.

7. Thus, for this Court to consider the delay under the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act, the period of inordinate delay should be sufficiently explained, and in present case, no proper reasons are assigned by the petitioner-claimants for condonation of such inordinate delay, even a proximate cause is not shown for condontion of delay in presenting the appeal.

8. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners-claimants have not assigned proper reasons for condonation of inordinate delay of 4141 days in presenting the appeal against the order of the W.C. Case No.4 of 2006 (F) dated 10.09.2008, and thus, the interlocutory application is liable to be rejected.

9. Accordingly, the Interlocutory App