In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.4773 of 2008 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:23.8.2011 Salinder Kumar .....Appellant v. Rajinder Singh .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ...... Present: Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.S. Mannipur, Advocate for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. Appellant-claimant Salinder Kumar in this appeal has prayed for setting aside the award dated 16.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Yamuna Nagar-II (hereinafter referred to as `the Commissioner'). Appellant Salinder Kumar was employed as an agriculture labourer for doing agriculture work in the fields as well as other connected work by the respondent-Rajinder Kumar. Salinder Kumar, while working on Toka Machine on 23.12.1999 met with an accident as his right hand was suddenly crushed in the Toka Machine. The appellant alleged that the F.A.O. No.4773 of 2008 (O&M) [2] accident occurred due to non-providing of safety measures by the respondent. After the accident the appellant was admitted in Mahavir Goel Hospital, Jagadhri on the same day. In the said accident, he suffered 50% permanent disability. He has alleged that the respondent did not pay him compensation despite repeated requests and Panchayat was called in the Village and due to the pressure by the respectable, the respondent assured him to pay the compensation but the same was not paid to him. He again called Panchayat in the year 2004 in which the respondent admitted before the Panchayat that he would employ the petitioner and would pay him minimum wages of `1,500/- per month including the meals, clothes etc. The respondent also admitted that he would bear the expenses of the marriage of the children of the petitioner in future. At the time of accident, Salinder Kumar was getting `1,500/- per month as salary from the respondent. On refusal of the respondent to pay compensation, the appellant filed claim petition and claimed `5 Lac as compensation for causing permanent disability. Respondent-Rajinder Singh appeared before the Commissioner and filed written statement wherein he has contended in the preliminary objections that the present claim petition was not maintainable as the claimant had already received `50,000/- as compensation from the respondent vide compromise dated 28.2.2000. He also stated that in addition to the above amount, the claimant also received `20,000/- from the Market Committee, Jagadhri. Therefore, the claimant has no locus standi to file the claim petition. The respondent also contended that the claim petition was hop;elessly time barred as it was filed about six years after the F.A.O. No.4773 of 2008 (O&M) [3] accident. The claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the the Commissioner on the ground of delay of approximately six years as the limitation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is two years. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant. I have heard Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Mr. J.S. Mannipur, Advocate, appearing for the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. The Commissioner, after appreciating the entire evidence and the fact that the claimant could not produce any material to condone the delay of about six years, dismissed the claim petition of the appellant. The fact that the appellant himself compromised the matter on 28.2.2000 and and received `50,000/- from the respondent and `20,000/- from the Market Committee and he continued to work with the respondent after the accident for three and half years, it is clear that the claim petition has been filed at a belated stage as there is inordinate delay of about six years in the filing of the claim petition. It is own fault of the claimant in approaching the Commissioner after a gap of approximately six years seeking compensation on account of accident. It is also evident that the appellant has compromised the matter with the respondent and received `50,000/- as compensation and `20,000/- from the Market Committee and the respondent cannot be fastened with a liability of payment of compensation at such a belated stage. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the claim petition has been filed, the nature of the job held F.A.O. No.4773 of 2008 (O&M) [4] by the appellant and the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground warranting interference in the impugned Award passed by the Commissioner. This appeal is, accordingly, hereby dismissed. August 23, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*