THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 2811 of 2003 Order: This revision is directed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the order dated 07.02.2003 made in W.C. No. 30 of 2002 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The husband of the first respondent herein namely Ramulu died in an accident that occurred on 14.12.1995. The mother of the deceased i.e., mother-in- law of the first respondent herein filed W.C. No.34 of 1996 without making the first respondent herein as party to the said case. Then the first respondent herein filed I.A. No. 9 of 1998 in W.C. No. 34 of 1996 seeking to implead her as one of the opposite parties. The said IA was allowed. But, subsequently, W.C. No.34 of 1996 was dismissed for default. Then the first respondent herein filed an application on 27.01.2000 praying to set aside the dismissal order passed in W.C. No.34 of 1996. Then, it appears that the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation directed the first respondent herein to file fresh application for compensation, and accordingly, the first respondent filed fresh application along with delay condone petition praying to condone the delay of 3 years 10 months 15 days in filing the application for compensation. The Commissioner considered the circumstances and held that the first respondent herein has shown reasonable grounds for condoning the delay. Accordingly, he condoned the delay. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company filed the present revision. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Condonation of delay depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Moreover when the lower authority, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, exercised his discretion and condoned the delay, unless it is found that the finding is perverse, illegal and without jurisdiction, the revisional Court cannot interfere with the impugned order. There is nothing on record to show that the order passed by the Commissioner is without jurisdiction or illegal. Of course, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent has suppressed the filing of W.C. No. 34 of 1996 by her mother-in-law. Admittedly, the mother-in-law of the respondent is not made the first respondent as party to W.C. No.34 of 1996. This gives an impression that the first respondent herein and her mother-in- law were not on talking terms. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that the first respondent had knowledge about the filing of W.C. No.34 of 1996 by her mother-in-law and she had knowingly suppressed the said fact. The Workmen Compensation Act and Motor Vehicles Act are the beneficial legislations enacted for the purpose of providing some relief to the legal heirs or the dependants of the deceased who died in an accident or for the purpose of providing a relief to the injured by way of paying some compensation to them. While interpreting the provisions of the beneficial legislations, the authorities and Courts must keep in mind the very purpose of the Act and the intended relief for which the Act was enacted. Admittedly, the first respondent is not a party to W.C. No. 34 of 1996. In view of the same, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the lower authority. The CRP is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is directed to dispose of W.C. No. 30 of 2002 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, since the accident occurred on 14.12.1995 and unfortunately the matter had been pending before this Court since last seven years. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 17.02.2011 Nsr