^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH IVl.A.fC) No. VA1'1 / 2011 <<_ _»-• APPELLANT ,APPLICANT z^ .^>"^ ^^ ^' .^. ^€^/ €>?T<^ '•""I^"^'77 '^' Govind Singh S/o Late Shri Ratan Singh aged about 45 years R/o Near Mannu Kirana Stores, Camp-1, Azad Mohalla, Steel Nagar, Near Masjid, Bhilai Distt. Durg (CG). VERSUS ,RESPONDENT/ NON-APPLICANT No. 1 RESPONDENT/ NON-APPLICANT N0. 2 /A. Jawahar Singh R/o Q. 5/B, Street -36/ Zone -2 Khursipar Bhilai Distt. Durg (CG). 2. Divisional Manager, , New India Insurance Co. Ltd. ' D.0.451200 Thakkar Chambers, G.E. Road Bhilai Distt. Durg (CG). %.»•»'' MISC APPEAL (CLAIM) UNDER SECTION 30 OF WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT. 1923 Appeal vajued Rs. 3.74.462/- (Rupees Three Lacs Seventv Four Thousand Four Hundred Sixtv Twojanlul- HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (C) No. 477 of 2011 Appellant Govind Singh Versus Respondents Jawahar Singh 8s another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3Q_OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATOIN ACT. 1923 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent No. 1, though served. Shri Sudhir Agarwal, Advocate foc the respondent No.2. ORDER LOral) ( Passed on this l lth day of October, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 2.11.2010, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Durg in Case No. 38/WCAct/2009, dismissing the claim petition. The, brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the appellant/claimant had &led a claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Durg for award of compensation on the ground that on 20.2.2006, while he was on duty at Medhak, Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh) and was doing the fabrication work in sponge iron, he fell down at the height of 25 feet and received grievous injuries, resulting in 100% permanent disability. The appellant was engaged in the eraployment of the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No.2 had issued the accidental insyrance policy. 1 Learned Commissioner, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition, holding that the claim petition was barred by limitation. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. It is evident that the accident was occurred on 20/22.2.2006 whereas the claim petition was filed on 6.4.2009. It is not disputed that no application, explaining the reason for filing the claim petition at belated stage, was filed. Similarly, no issue was framed at any point of time regarding limitation and it appears that all of a sudden learned Commissioner while delivering the judgment and order framed the additional issue No.6 and has passed the award on that issue, whereas the proceedings were held from 6.4.2009 to 28.10.2010, the statements of the witness were recorded and the arguments were heard but till the hearing of the arguments the order-sheets speak that nobody had known about the additional issue regarding* limitation. The appellant who was a poor person and lay man and was 100% disabled should have been given at least an opportunity to explain the delay. Howeyer, in his statement he has explained his condition and stated that he was not in a position even to move. Section lO^of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 provides for notice and claim. Proviso to- sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, 1923 reads thus : "Provided further that the Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim to compensation any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given, or the claim has not been preferred, in due time as provided in this sub-section, if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or prefer the 7. 8. claim, as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause." This proviso provides that the claim petition should be entertained on raerits if the Commissioner is satisfied that the failure to prefer the claim was due to sufficient cause. Therefore, it was only the satisfaction of the Commissioner for which no application for condonation of delay for filing the claim petition was to be given if the cause of filing the claim petition at belated stage was given and if the Commissioner is satisfied he could have entertained and decided the claim petition. In fact the claim petition was filed, the written stateraents and documents were also filed by the parties, statements were recorded and full fledged trial was conducted. Eariier there were only Gve issues and the 6th issue regarding limitation, which was an additional issue, was framed in the award only and not at any other previous stage. The legislature has enacted the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to provide an Act for the payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen of compensation for injuiy by accident. The Comments read thus : "It is well-settled that the Act is a piece of social security and welfare legislation. Its dominant purpose is to protect the workman and, therefore, the provisions of the Act should not be interpreted too narrowly so as to debar the workraan-from compensation which the Parliaraent thought they ought to have. The intentidti of the Legislature was to make the employer an insurer of the workman responsible against the loss caused by the injuries or death, which ought to have happened, while the workman was engaged in his work. In view of the above we are of the opinion that the appellant was not having an adequate oppoTtunity to know that the delay is to be explained by hira. However, by his statement it appears that he has explained his condition that he was not even in a position to move. There is catena of decisions of the HonTale Apex Court to the effect that the Court should not be rigid in the matters of limitation. In the instant case it was the duty of the Commissioner to see that the legitimate claim of the workman should not be denied and for that reason the jurisdiction to decide such claim petition in the workmen compensation Act has been conferred to the Commissioner. 9. Therefore, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the award and remit back the matter to the Comn-iissioner for decision afresh on merits. No order as to costs. 10. However, the appellant shall file an affidavit explaining the delay. He shall also be given an opportunity to appear before the Medical Board and the opinion of the medical board shall be filed before the Commissioner. 11. The parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence and file documents and get the documents verified etc. and thereafter the award shall be passed in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The Commissioner shall consider the cause of not filing the claim petition in time whether sufficient or not. 12. The . parties shall appear "jaefore the Commissioner on 29th November, 2011. 13. The lower courts record shall be sent back without delay. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minha.juddin Judge te)^ Thakur