FAO No. 5841 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5841 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.11.2010 M/s A to Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellant v. Dalbir Singh @ Beer Singh and others .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Saurav Khurana, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. R. C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No. 4. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 8.5.2009, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, Amritsar-I (for short, `the Commissioner'), whereby a sum of ` 3,87,337.50 was awarded as compensation on account of the death of Joga Singh @ Jograj Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no material was produced by respondents No. 1 to 3-claimants to show that Joga Singh @ Jograj Singh was ever employed with the appellant. Though no evidence was led in that regard, still the amount has been awarded by the Commissioner. He further submitted that the counsel engaged by the appellant having expired, his son- Mr. Sanjiv Kaushal, Advocate had been taking care of the case, but without any intimation to the appellant. On account of his misconduct, even a complaint had been filed against him in Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana. There is an application seeking condonation of delay of 160 days in filing the appeal as well. The ground raised is that the counsel who had been engaged by the appellant had died on 7.10.2008. The appellant gained the FAO No. 5841 of 2009 [2] knowledge of the order passed by the Commissioner only when the summons were received in execution proceedings, otherwise the appellant never came to know even about the death of the counsel engaged by it. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the present case after service of notice on the respondents in the claim petition, the appellant was represented through counsel. He stated before the Commissioner that amount of compensation shall be deposited in the court. However, thereafter neither the amount was deposited nor written statement was filed in spite of grant of ten opportunities. The defence of the appellant was also struck off. It is in these circumstances, the claim made by respondents No. 1 to 3, which was supported by an affidavit filed in evidence, was accepted and there is no ground to set aside the impugned order. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The claim petition was filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 on 6.8.2008 in which admittedly the service was effected upon the appellant and a counsel was engaged to put in appearance as well. It was stated by the counsel representing the appellant before the Commissioner that the amount claimed shall be deposited in court. However, as is noticed in the impugned order, neither the amount was deposited nor any written statement was filed in spite of grant of ten opportunities. The defence of the appellant was struck off. Considering the averments made in the claim petition, which was supported by an affidavit, the Commissioner awarded compensation to respondents No. 1 to 3. In the complaint filed by the appellant to the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana against Mr. Sanjiv Kaushal, Advocate, it has been specifically admitted that along with Mr. N. R. Kaushal, Advocate (deceased), Mr.Sanjiv Kaushal, Advocate had put his signatures on the power of attorney, though he was not engaged, but the fact remains that before the Commissioner, there was a power of attorney on record in which Mr. Sanjiv Kaushal was shown to be the Advocate authorised to represent the appellant. As on record with the Commissioner, there was an authorised counsel, but despite grant of number of opportunities, he did not choose to file written statement and defend the case on behalf of the appellant, I do not find any reason to grant any further opportunity to the appellant to contest the case on merits. The complaint against the counsel has already been filed in the Bar Council, which may take care of that. If the appellant is so advised, he can take appropriate steps even to recover the amount from the appellant if he foresees his default or connivance in the matter. FAO No. 5841 of 2009 [3] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the accompanying applications are also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 17.11.2010 mk