In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... CM No.11910-CII of 2011 and F.A.O. No.3394 of 2011 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:1.9.2011 Balbir Kaur .....Appellant v. M/s Amritsar Beverage Ltd. .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. D.P. Punia, Advocate for the appellant. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. CM No.11910-CII of 2011: Appellant-applicant has filed the present application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1118 days in filing the present appeal on the ground that after the death of her younger son she is not keeping good health. On this ground, she sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Appellant-applicant has not placed on record the death certificate of her son to prove as to when he died. She took a plea that after the death of her son, she was not keeping good health but this explanation is CM No.11910-CII of 2011 and F.A.O. No.3394 of 2011 (O&M) [2] not plausible being not supported by any medical evidence. Further, the application filed by the appellant-applicant is not correct as she in para 3 of the application has mentioned the delay as 1097 days while in the prayer clause it is mentioned as 1118 days. Normally, the delay is condoned. It is settled by now that the lis between the parties should be decided on merits rather than on technicalities. However, the present is a case in which there is inordinate delay of 1118 days in filing the appeal and no plausible explanation is coming forward from the appellant. The application being vague, delay being unexplained by the appellant-applicant, no ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal is made and the same is accordingly dismissed. F.A.O. No.3394 of 2011: Otherwise on merits also, the appeal is not maintainable, as the appellant has already received `1,60,000/- as compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar under the Motor Vehicles Act. After appreciating the evidence and material produced before it, the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Circle-I, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as `the Commissioner') dismissed the claim petition of the appellant by holding that she has already received compensation. I have heard Mr. D.P. Punia, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and have perused the records of this case. In Ram Rattan v. Jagdish Sharn Jindal, 2005 (1) PLR 313, this Court has held that when a person is entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act as well as under the Workmen's Compensation Act, he may claim the compensation under either of the Acts but not under both the Acts. Keeping in view the above decision, as the appellant has already CM No.11910-CII of 2011 and F.A.O. No.3394 of 2011 (O&M) [3] received `1,60,000/- as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, she is not liable to receive compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed on merits also. September 1, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*