FAO No. 3954 of 2004 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 3954 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.5.2011 Niranjan Kumar Mandal (deceased) through LRs ... Appellant vs M/s U. S. R. Packers .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 26.2.2004 passed by the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 whereby the application filed by the appellant claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him during the course of employment, has been dismissed due to delay whereas the amount of compensation as such has been calculated. The undisputed facts are that on 4.10.1997 during the course of employment with respondent- M/s U. S. R. Packers, when the appellant was loading wooden packaging boxes in a buggi (cart), a box fell on his back causing injury to his spinal cord. He was taken to Dr. Tanya in Dabua Colony for first aid. He was shifted to Veero Devi Memorial Orthopedic and Trauma Centre No. 5, Faridabad, from where he was referred to Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Hospital. He remained admitted there from 13.12.1997 to 16.4.1998. The accident resulted in 75% disability with 100% loss of earning capacity. The application for compensation having been filed on 5.2.2002 was dismissed on account of delay and latches. Though the Commissioner in the order calculated that the appellant was entitled to ` 1,72,520/- as compensation and ` 1,31,220/- on account of interest. FAO No. 3954 of 2004 (2) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a case in which on account of serious injuries suffered, the appellant was initially taken to Dr. Tanya in Dabua Colony for first aid, then taken to Veero Devi Memorial Orthopedic and Trauma Centre No. 5, Faridabad. He was referred to Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Hospital, where he remained admitted from 13.12.1997 to 16.4.1998. But the injury was not cured. Thereafter, he got himself treated from Sri Aurobindo Seva Kendra, Calcutta in the year 1999. He had also taken treatment in the year 2001 from Neurocentre of Dr. Ajit Singh Randhawa, Amritsar. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was unable to move because of injury on the spinal cord. As a result of the accident, he suffered 75% disability and was not able to walk any more. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant was an illiterate person. On account of financial crises, he could not even engage an Advocate at the relevant time to file his case. He filed the same in person. He was not aware of the intricacies of law that a separate application was required to be filed on account of delay in filing the claim petition. Though the facts stated in the claim petition clearly justified that it was in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that application could not be filed within time. Section 10 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act') though provides for limitation of two years to file claim petition, there is enabling provisions for even condoning the delay. It is beneficial piece of legislation and the technicalities should not come in the way of substantial justice. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application filed by the appellant being highly belated deserved to be dismissed and has rightly been dismissed by the Commissioner. Even if there is enabling provisions in the Act for condoning delay in filing the application beyond two years. In the present case, in the absence of any application and prayer therefor, the same could not be condoned and the application has rightly been dismissed by the Commissioner. FAO No. 3954 of 2004 (3) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The appellant in the present case expired on 8.8.2004 and his legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 14.12.2009 passed in Civil Misc. No. 28513/CII of 2009. The fact that the appellant was employee of the respondent and further that the accident had taken place during the course of employment is not disputed. It has also come on record that on account of injuries suffered by him on his spinal cord, he remained admitted in various hospitals. He was initially taken to Dr. Tanya in Dabua Colony for first aid, thereafter to Veero Devi Memorial Orthopedic and Trauma Centre No. 5, Faridabad. He was referred to Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Hospital, where he remained admitted from 13.12.1997 to 16.4.1998 (Ex. AW1/5). He got himself treated from Sri Aurobindo Seva Kendra, Calcutta in the year 1999 (Ex. AW1/11) and from Neurocentre of Dr. Ajit Singh Randhawa, Amritsar in the year 2001 (Ex. AW1/15). Even after discharge from the hospital, he was unable to move because of serious injury on the spinal cord. The injury was still not cured. He suffered disability to the extent of 75%. The aforesaid documents clearly established that the appellant was not well and was running from one hospital to another for getting the treatment. At that time, the priority remains to get the treatment and not to file the application for compensation. Rather it was the duty of the employer to have paid the compensation to the appellant whatever was due in terms of the provisions of the Act. Regarding disability, the appellant has placed on record the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Faridabad, as Ex. AW1/16, showing the same to be 75%. Injury on the spinal cord with disability to the extent of 75%, will certainly result in loss of earning capacity of 100%. On that account, the Commissioner has calculated the amount of ` 1,72,520/- as compensation and ` 1,31,220/- on account of interest payable to the appellant. However, the claim was dismissed as time barred. FAO No. 3954 of 2004 (4) Now taking up the issue of delay in filing the claim petition. In my opinion, the delay in the present case deserves to be condoned for the reason that the claim was filed by the appellant in person. Even during the course of proceedings before the Commissioner he did not avail of services of Advocate. He may not be well conversant with the intricacies of law, however, in his application, the facts stated and further from the material brought on record in the evidence, it was clearly evident that it is a case where the delay in filing the application deserves to be condoned. The Employee's Compensation Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. The employer in the present case cannot be allowed to raise this plea as it was his duty to have paid compensation to the appellant once he knew that the appellant had suffered injuries during the course of employment. It was totally unreasonable on his part initially not to have paid the compensation and subsequently raise the plea of limitation. Accordingly, in my opinion, the delay in filing the claim petition before the Commissioner deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned. On the issue of entitlement of compensation of the appellant, the amount has already been calculated by the Commissioner in its order. In addition thereto, he has also calculated the interest from the date of accident till the date of passing of the order. The only modification, in my opinion, which is called for in the facts and circumstances of the case, on account of delay in filing of the claim petition, is that the interest is to be calculated from the date of institution of the claim petition. The amount of compensation calculated as such i.e. ` 1,72,520/- will remain the same. However, the interest be paid from 5.2.2002 till the date of payment of compensation, at the rate already mentioned by the Commissioner in its order. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. 23.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge