1 W.P.No.5125.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5125 OF 2010 Shri Madhav Rambhau Ghuge ... Petitioner v/s Shri Jaywant Balasaheb Ghodake & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Rameshwar N. Gite for the petitioner. Mr.Y.M.Pendse for respondent No.1. Ms Urmila K. Sanil for respondent No.2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 14TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2. The order impugned in the present petition has been passed on the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act claiming compensation for injuries suffered by the petitioner. The Commissioner for 2 W.P.No.5125.10 Workmen’s Compensation has refused to condone the delay on the ground that the petitioner had not justified the reasons for the delay. 3. It appears that the petitioner met with an accident on 12.7.2004. He was arrested and a criminal case was pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Peth. He was later acquitted on 14.3.2008 by the criminal Court. It was only thereafter that he filed the present application for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 4. It appears from the proceedings that it was a contention of the petitioner that he had delayed the filing of the application because some officers of the Insurance Company had informed him that such an application was maintainable only after the decision of the criminal Court. However, it appears that even after the decision of the criminal Court, the petitioner had not preferred any application for the last 11 months. Admittedly, a notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner to the respondents calling upon them to pay compensation, penalty and interest. That notice was issued on 22.12.2008, almost six months after a copy of the judgment of the Court of the Judical Magistrate First Class. was received. It is in these circumstances that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has refused 3 W.P.No.5125.10 to condone the delay. 5. I have perused the proceedings as well as an application for condoning the delay preferred by the applicant. It appears that the petitioner was suffering from 30% disability which included Post Traumatic Stiffness which has affected his right elbow and wrist. 6. There is undoubtedly a power vested in the Commissioner to condone the delay in preferring an application under Section 10. The Commissioner however must be satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the application to be filed after a delay. In the present case, in my opinion, the applicant has shown sufficient cause as he was suffering from a 30% disability which proved to be an impediment in filing the application within the period of limitation. The delay is of about six months and in these circumstances, the Commissioner ought to have condoned the delay. 7. The writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. 8. The delay in preferring the application is condoned. The application filed under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act shall be registered and heard in accordance with law. ..... 4 W.P.No.5125.10 5 W.P.No.5125.10