FAO No. 4685 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 4685 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.12.2009 The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh and another ..... Appellants vs Santosh and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Circle-1, Sonepat, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,86,900/- as compensation and interest to the respondents on account of death of Dharampal @ Ramehar, husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondents no. 2 and 3. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Dharampal @ Ramehar was employed as driver with Haryana Roadways. On 16.12.1995, when he was coming from Manali to Chandigarh by driving Bus No. HR-03-8079, the bus fell into Beas river as a result of which many passengers including the driver died at the spot. The respondents filed claim petition along with application for condonation of delay. Their claim petition was accepted against which the present appeal is preferred by the State. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the present case the claim petition was filed after a delay of 9½ years whereas in terms of the provisions of Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, “the Act”) such an application could be filed within a period of two years. After hearing the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. In the present case the facts regarding the employment of deceased Dharmpal, who died while on duty is not in dispute. The dispute is sought to be raised on the issue that the claim petition filed by the respondents was not within the time prescribed under Section 10-A of the Act. However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondents had, in fact, filed application before the authority concerned immediately claiming compensation under the Act which was even admitted by the witnesses produced FAO No. 4685 of 2009 -2- by the appellants. However, the claim was not considered. It is a case where respondent no. 1 who is the widow of the deceased is an illiterate lady and respondents no. 2 and 3 were kids at the time when their father expired. Last proviso to Section 10 (1) of the Act enables the Commissioner even to condone the delay even if the application is not filed within time. The Commissioner in this case had exercised his jurisdiction having considering the facts of the present case and finding reasons to be sufficient to condone the delay in filing the claim petition which, in my opinion, cannot be faulted with considering the fact that it is a beneficial piece of legislation and in terms of the provisions of the Act the family of the deceased was, in fact, entitled to the compensation under the Act. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is dismissed. 10.12.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge