IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No. 3684 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.7.2010 National Insurance Co.Limited … Appellant versus Pan Matia & others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant. ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present appeal is by the Insurance Company against order dated 28.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act,1923, Ambala, whereby the legal representatives of Ram Kewal have been awarded compensation. In brief, the facts are that Ram Kewal was second driver along with Jaspal Singh on the truck bearing registration No. HR-37/4545 and had gone to Patna along with the goods where both of them are stated to have been murdered. The legal representatives of Jaspal Singh have already received compensation. However, the legal representatives of Ram Kewal filed the present petition after a delay of 8 years along with an application for condonation of said delay, which was condoned and the petition was allowed as indicated above. The only argument of counsel for the insurance compny is that the petition was hopelessly time barred. The contention is without any merit. The residual question is whether delayed approach disentitled the claimant from any relief. Undisputedly, the application was filed after 8 years of the death. While it is well known that technicality should not stand in the way of substantive justice, it is also to be considered whether a stale claim lying for a very long period should be permitted to be revived. It is well-settled that when a discretion vests in a judicial or quasi-judicial authority, it has to be exercised in accordance with well settled principles of FAO No. 3684 of 2010 -2- justice and not in an arbitrary manner. It is equally well settled that when discretionary jurisdiction has been exercised in favour of a party, the same should not be lightly interfered with and muchless in a case of this nature. In the instant case, there were two deaths. The workman died during the course of employment. Undisputedly, the legal representatives of the deceased Jaspal Singh have already received compensation. This led the Commissioner to hold that it is another ground to condone the delay, obviously for the sake of parity. It has been held in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, 1987 RLR 169 that a litigant does not stand to benefit by filing a time barred matter. The Workmen Compensation Act is a beneficent legislation. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Commissioner under the Act. Appeal stands dismissed in limine. July 12, 2010 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE