CM No.4117-CII-2009 and - 1 - FAO No.959 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM No.4117-CII-2009 and FAO No.959 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 05.05.2010 **** Mrs. Saroj and others . . . . Appellants VS. Sh. Baljeet Singh and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.J.P. Dhull, Advocate for the applicants/appellants. Ms.Rajwinder Kaur, advocate for Respondent No.2. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. CM No.4117-CII-2009 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) for condonation of delay of 447 days’ in filing of the appeal. Notice in the application was issued to which a reply has also been filed. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are poor rustic villagers who were unaware of the procedure of filing the appeal, therefore, the same could not be filed within time. However, there is a merit in their appeal. It is submitted that meritorious matter may not be dismissed as threshold as held by the Supreme Court in the case of “Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another CM No.4117-CII-2009 and - 2 - FAO No.959 of 2009 Versus Mst.Katiji and others” AIR 1987 SC 1353. On merits, it is submitted that this case is fully covered by the decisions of this Court in the cases of FAO No.977 of 2007 (O&M) titled as “Sheela Devi & Others Versus The District Forest Officer, Sonipat and another” decided on 28.2.2008, FAO No.2084 of 2008 titled as “ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Sanjida and another” decided on 2.12.2009 and FAO No.3844 of 2008 titled as “Sadhu Ram Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Old Rohtak Road Sahkurbasti, New Punjabi Bagh, through its Chief Engineer and others” decided on 25.02.2010, as the point involved in all these appeals is similar to the effect that complainant would be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation not from the date of adjudication but from the date of accident. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the interest has to be calculated from the date of adjudication as decided by the Supreme Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Versus Mubasir Ahmed and another” 2007(2) PLR 188. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this application deserves to be allowed as the applicants have good case on merits which also constitutes a sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay. Moreover, the applicants are rustic villagers and are the claimants, which include the widow and her minor children. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and delay of 447 days’ in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. CM No.4117-CII-2009 and - 3 - FAO No.959 of 2009 FAO No.959 of 2009 Vide Award dated 29.6.2007, the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, Kurukshetra Circle, Kurukshetra allowed the application filed by the claimants/appellants herein for compensation on account of death of Dhoop Singh by awarding a sum of Rs.4,15,960/- with a further direction to deposit the said amount within 30 days in his Court otherwise, it was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The appellants were held entitle to simple interest @ 12% per annum in case the amount is not deposited. The grievance of the appellants is that the Commissioner has not verified the date from which the interest would be calculated. According to the claimants/appellants, the interest is required to be calculated after the expiry of 30 days from the date of accident as held in the case of Supreme Court in the case of “Partap Narain Singh Deo Versus Srinivas Sabata and another” 1976(1) SCC 289. On the contrary, the case of the respondents is that the interest has to be calculated after expiry of 30 days from the date of adjudication as held by the Supreme Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Versus Mubasir Ahmed and another” 2007(2) PLR 188. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this point has already been considered and decided by this Court by way of various decisions, freshly in the case of “New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Manphool Singh and others” 2008 (1) PLR 706. It has been followed by this Court in FAO No.3844 of 2008 titled as “Sadhu Ram Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Old Rohtak Road Sahkurbasti, New Punjabi Bagh, through its Chief Engineer and others” decided on 25.02.2010. CM No.4117-CII-2009 and - 4 - FAO No.959 of 2009 In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the order of the Commissioner is modified to the extent that the appellants shall be entitled to interest as awarded after the expiry of one month from the date of accident. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 05.05.2010 JUDGE Vivek