WP(C) 4597/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR MADAN B LOKUR Diljit Singh was a workman being a driver in a truck. His vehicle met wi th an accident on 1st September, 1992 and at that time he was about 38 years. He succumbed to his injuries. His legal representatives i.e. the respondents preferred a claim petitio n before the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. By an award date d 30th October, 1996 an amount of Rs. 1,89,560/- was awarded to the legal repres entatives of Diljit Singh. This amount was disbursed to the respondents soon the reafter, i.e. on or about 28th August, 1997. It appears that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before this Co urt being MFA 67/1997. It was contended that the amount paid was in excess. The appeal was taken up for consideration in the Lok Adalat and by an or der dated 17th August, 2002, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner, W orkmen’s Compensation with the direction to dispose it of according to the law a pplicable at the time of the accident. The petitioner then preferred a petition before the Commissioner under t he Workmen’s Compensation Act and by an order dated 26th September, 2003 the Com missioner came to the conclusion that the respondents were entitled only to an a mount of Rs. 75,824/-. The petitioner then preferred an application before the Commissioner, Wo rkmen’s Compensation for refund of the excess amount of Rs. 63,368/- with intere st but the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act declined to exercis e his jurisdiction. By the impugned order dated 20th December, 2006 it was held by the Commissioner that the petitioner should prefer a petition before the appr opriate civil court. Before the Commissioner, as well as before me, the respondents have not been represented. This may be because of a lack of sufficient financial means. I t seems to me that since the amount was paid to the respondents as far as back a s on 28th August, 1997 i.e. more than 13 years ago, it would be inequitable to d irect refund of the amount since the respondents would have utilised it by now, as they belong apparently to a low economic strata. Under the circumstances, I decline to exercise my discretion in favour o f the petitioner and dismiss the writ petition. However, the question whether a petition should be preferred before an appropriate civil court, as held by the C ommissioner, is left open for adjudication in an appropriate case.