1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5149 OF 2009 Ramesh Narayan Menon ... Petitioner v/s Arun S. Malvankar & anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.M.Oak i/by Mr.Sagar Joshi for the petitioner. Mr.R.J.Singh for respondent No.1. Mr.S.M.Vidhyarthi for respondent No.2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 7TH JUNE, 2010 P.C.: 1. Rule, returnable forthwith by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed on 22.1.2009 by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation rejecting his application for condoning the delay in filing the claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Several reasons have been mentioned in the application for condoning the delay, inter-alia, that the petitioner was 2 unaware of the forum for redressal of his grievance and that he had severe financial constraints in approaching the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 3. The petitioner met with an accident on 16.2.2003. An application has been filed by him being Application (WCA) No.491/I-126/2006 under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The claim is to be filed after a notice is sent to the employer as soon as practicable in accordance with Section 10 of the Act. The claim has to be preferred before the Commissioner within two years after the date of the accident. However, the Commissioner may entertain and decide the claim for compensation which has been filed beyond the period of limitation if he is satisfied that the failure to prefer the claim was due to sufficient cause. The Commissioner has rejected the claim in the present case by concluding that the delay does not deserve to be condoned as the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause. 5. One of the grounds stated in the application for condoning the delay is that the petitioner had incurred heavy expenses on account of his medical treatment and therefore was not in a position to approach the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation for redressal of his grievance. 3 The learned Commissioner has not considered this ground while rejecting the application for condoning the delay. 6. In my view, the nature of the accident and the fact that the petitioner was hospitalized for several fractures would indicate that he was required to spend a huge amount on his treatment. Besides, the petitioner was employed as a driver and therefore it can hardly be gainsaid that he did not have sufficient financial resources to redress his grievance. In any event, the employer had no objection for the delay being condoned. 7. In these circumstances, in my view, the delay which is almost of a year needs to be condoned. However, the petitioner must be put to terms while condoning the delay. 8. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. 9 The delay in filing the application under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is condoned on the petitioner paying the Insurance Company an amount of Rs.1000/- within four weeks from today, as costs condition precedent. ..... 4