HIOH COURT OP CHHAmSGUMai. BILA8PUR DB: HOM'BLE IJB. QUDDU8I & HON'BLB K. K. AGRAWAL. JJ MISC. APPEALIC I No. 1352 OF 2009 v». APPEAL UKDBR 8B<?nON 30 OF THB WORKMBITS COMPIB»8ATIOHACT APPEARANCE: Mr. PrafuU Bfaarat, counsd for fhe appellant Mr. Axiand Dadariya, counsel for respondent no. 1. Mr. Anand Gupta, counsel fiir respoxident no.2 Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J ORDEai (ORALI (24.09.20l<q 1. This appeal has been fited ^iainst fhc iiapugaed award ! dated 18.08.2009 p^ssed by the Coinmissioner Worlanen's Coinpensation Jagdalpur, DMtrict Bastar in Civil Case No.l3/27/09WCF. 2. Brieffacts offhe casc are as foUows: II APPELiASTB 1 Foolo Bai Netam w/o Late Suraj Nctam, ayed. about 42 years, 2 Kii. Butaa, D/o Late Siuaj Netain, ayed about 15 years AppeBant no.2 nnnor fluough mother and natural guaidiaa, Smt. Foolo Bai Netam, Bofh R/o Deorapara, Bfafla, Distfc Duig._ RBBPOITOBNTS 1 Siat Gurucharan Kaur Bhatia w/o Sardar Guideep Smgh Bhatia, R/o Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon (C.G). 2 National Insuraace Co. Ltd., Rajnandgaon, Thiough. Branch Maiiager, iJagdalpur, Distfc Bastar (C.G)._ •"•^-•a,. utS, ^ a.^^i'^ '•!.\ IS%K,'!~--^ (^ That the appeUants filed a caae for coaipensation for the deafh of oi»e Suraj Netam. who died ia a motBr accident It te aUeged by fhe appeUaats fhat on 29.07.2cx)l fhe deceased was drinng the Taxiter bearing Regn. No.MP-29D/0061 atid was gon^ fixun Raipurto Waltair. The said vehicle was owaed by noa- appUcaat no. 1. When this taiilier reached nuear viBage Balenga, fhe steeruq; wheel became finee resultuig ia to k>ss of balance of fhe vehicle aud it dasfaed against a statioiiaiy Tmck bearmg Regn.No.MP-35T/48l5. Due to fhe aforesaM coUusioa, Suraj Netaia sufifered grievous injuries and he was admitted ia a ho^»ital where on 30.07.2001 he succumbed to the iigunes. The deccased was aged about 50 years aad waa eaming a sum of Rs.7000/- per montfa. The appellants claimcd a total sum of Rs.10,75,000/- as compensation. (n) Tliat fhe leamed Claims Tribunal vKle order dated 24.03.2003 disxiiissed the clafaa applicatfoa filed by fhc appeUants. Agaiast fh.e order dated 24.03.2003, a Misc. Appeal was filed before this Court. On 04.11.2008 ttus Coiut permitted fhe appeBaats to wifhdraw the Misc. Appeel No.842/2CX)3 with a liberty to fite appropriate proceediags uader the Workmen's Conapensation Act Et'.y-. (iii) Pursuaat to oxder dated 04.11.2008, the appeUaats filed a case u/s 22 of the Workmen's Coiapcnsatton Act aloiigwith an appUcation u/s 5 of the Liautatbn Act to condonc the dclay in pBeferrmg.fhe claim u/s 22 of the Workmen's compensation Act The appeBants subxnitted before the Cominissioncr fhat earlter liiey preferred a claim case undcr fhe piovisions pfM.V. Act and the xaatter went up to tbe. High Court aad tfae appellants vide order dated 04. 11.2008 withdiew tfaeir appeal wlfh a Bberty to niove before fhe Conaxnissioner '<>> 'ww-s^ ^ ^^ for Worlanen's Coiapcnsatfon Act aad praycd to condone fhe delay. (iv) That the leamed Commissioner nde order dated 18.08.2009 heard fhe ai^iunents regatding main.tamabilily of fhe claim application before hiai. The learacd Conumssioner held that fhe svppeBas.ta ought to have filed the case within fhe stipulatcd period or when fhe objection was madc by thfi other side before the Claims Tribiuial and aince fhe Instant appUcatfon has been fited after 7 years therefore dismissed fhe appBcatton filcd by flie appellaats on fhe ground ofdelay. Hence, tfais appeal. 3. The claimaats filed the claim petition before fhe MACT in the year 2001 itself which was registered as ClaiiH Petition No.505/2001 and it was disiaissed as not inainteinable on 24.04.2003 holdiag tfaat the claunants should have filed the Claim Petition under fhe Workinen Coiupensatfon Act bef(M® the Coiiunissioner, Workmen's Goiapensation. It is stated by Mr. PrafiiU Bharat fhat a ptea was takea in fhe writtea statement fUed by the oiwner of the velricle that the claim petition was not niaintamable before the MACT and it should Iiave been filed before fhe Commissioaer, Worknwn Coinpensation Act. 04. Against thc order 24.04.2003 fhe appellants filed M.A.No.842/2003 befone fhis Court. HoweveE, on fhe advice of leamed counsel for the appeUants, fhe sauie was allowed to be wifhdrawn with liberly to the appellaats to fite appropriate pKx^edings under the Workmen Coinpensation Acfc That oiderwas passed on04.11.2008which is(pioted as uirien 'Learaed coiuisel for fhc appeUants seeks to witfadraw this appeal with liberty to filc appropriate proccedmgs iinder fhe Workmen Coiapensation Act The appeal is disaussed as withdrawn with Uberty as prayed for." Thereafter, the appellants filcd Claun Petitfon before the CominMsioner, Workmiaa Conipensation on 18.06.2009 along-wifh fhe application for coadonation of delay which was rejected and fhe claim petition was dismissed as time barred. 5. Froin the above facts and cirouaistances, it would clcady show fhat aay how the claiin petition reinamed pending and the award disinissiag the clairu petition was passed by tfae MACT vide order dated 24.04.2003, a^inst whieh the Misc. Appeal was filed bcfore this Gourt and therefore, tfae proceedmgs continued tiU the appeal was dismissed aca withdrawn with a Bberty to file the claun peti.tfc>n befoTe fhc Coiiunissioner, Workm.ca Goinpensation. 6. Once the High Court has givca fhe libcrly to fi]e fhe claitn petitton bcfore fhe Comaussioaer Workmen Compensation, the Commassioner shouU havc conaidetcd the .period spcnt -by fhe claunauts in Utigatfon and considering the fact fhat the claim petition was filed on 12.12.2001 withm 5 months firoin fhe date of accident which had taken place on 29.07.2001 and the legal piuceedmgs remained pending fhioiigh-out tfll the date of order of this Gourt i.e., 04,11.2008 and thus wbea the claim petitton. was ftted oa 18.6.2009 fhat is after 7 months, it <x>iild have been toeated v Rao as bonafide spent in litigatfon coasidermg fhe oider of this Coiut grantiag Uberty to file claim petition before thc ConunissioiieT ofWorkmen CoiapeasatioB. 7. In view ofthe above, thc awsad passcd by the Conmussioiier, Worlanen Compeasatton, is set asidc aad the delay in ffltag thc claiin petition is condoned. The iiiatter te xiemitted baok to the Conanissioner, Workmen Compensatfoa to rratore the Claim Petition to its oiiyasS. aumber ticating it as withiu time aad procced with the case on ineitts ia acconlance with law. The Coaunlssioncr shaU dfapose of (he matter svs eaa-ly as possible after providing due opportunily to the parties to adduce the evidence if aay. The xiecords of the Commissioner shatt be sentback forthwifli. Sd/- I.M.Quddussi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge