IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.203 OF 2002. APPEAL NO.203 OF 2002. APPEAL NO.203 OF 2002. 1. Sulgan Singh Sohan Singh, ) 74 yrs., ) 2. Chandan Kaur Sulgan Singh, ) 72 yrs., ) Village & Post Gaggadbhana, ) Tehsil Baba Bakala, ) District Amritsar. )..Appellants Versus. 1. Shri Balbir Singh Milap Singh, ) M/s Khalsa Battery, Opp.Bldg No.19, ) Shop No.308, G.T.B Road, Mumbai. ) 2. New Indian Assurance Company Ltd., ) 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, ) Mumbai 23. )..Respondents --- Shri M.B.Kotak for the Appellants. Ms Aarti Barve for the Respondents. --- CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: ABHAY S.OKA, J. ABHAY S.OKA, J. ABHAY S.OKA, J. 13th 13th 13th FEBRUARY, 2008. FEBRUARY, 2008. FEBRUARY, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. The submissions of the advocates appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. The appellants are the original claimants in a claim application filed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1932. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 08th February, 2000 by the learned Commissioner. The application has been rejected on the ground that there was no application for condonation of delay filed by the : 2 : 2 : 2 : appellants making out a case for condonation of delay in filing claim application. The claim application has been filed in the year 1995 which was dismissed on 08th February, 2000. Therefore, instead of delaying the matter further this Court permitted the appellants to file an application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the said application dated 11th February, 2008 has been filed on record. I have heard the advocate appearing for the second respondent on the said application. Initially the claim application was filed before the Commissioner at Dhule. Later on the application was transferred to learned Commissioner at Mumbai in the year 1995. There is a delay of 137 days in filing the claim petition. The grounds for condonation of delay have been summarised in paragraph No.4 of the said application. 2. In my view, a case is made out for condonation of delay in filing claim application. 3. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned order dated 08th February, 2000 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The delay in filing application (WCA) No.278/B-41 of 1995 is condoned. : 3 : 3 : 3 : (iii) The learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Mumbai will now proceed to decide the said application on merits in accordance with law. (iv) Hearing of the said application is expedited. (v) The appeal is partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. Judge. Judge. Judge.