Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Bhanabhai Ranabhai Bhola

Gujarat High Court

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Bhanabhai Ranabhai Bhola on 7 July, 2025

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/8197/2025                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8197 of 2025

                        FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                        HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

                        ==========================================================

                                     Approved for Reporting                   Yes            No
                                                                             ✔
                        ==========================================================
                           BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAJKOT
                                                     Versus
                                        BHANABHAI RANABHAI BHOLA & ORS.
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                        MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                        ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

                                                         Date : 07/07/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2024 passed below Exhibit 17 in Workman Misc. Application No.10 of 2024 by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and Labour Court No.2, Junagadh. By the said order, the application filed for condonation of delay has been allowed, thereby condoning the delay of 13 years in filing the claim application under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8197/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined

2. The gist of the case is that the deceased, Hardasbhai Balubhai Parmar, who was serving as a driver, died in a vehicular accident on 17.03.2009. Respondent No.1 was the owner of the truck, and the petitioner was the insurer of the truck bearing Registration No. GJ- 10-X-8757. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, had preferred MACP No.126 of 2009 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.5,74,000/-. The said claim petition came to be withdrawn on 21.01.2017 with liberty to file a claim under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

2.1. Thereafter, on 08.08.2024, the claim petition was filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The present petitioner appeared before the learned Commissioner and resisted the delay condonation application by contending that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and suffered from inordinate delay and laches in filing the claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

2.2. The learned Commissioner, after considering the submissions made by both the petitioner and the claimant, allowed the application, which is the Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:42:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8197/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati for the petitioner-Insurance Company.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavati submits that though it was contended in the claim petition that claimant No.4 is a minor, the actual date of birth of the said claimant has not been proved. It is further submitted by the advocate Mr.Nanavati that the interest of the minor is being looked after by claimant No.1, who is the natural guardian. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati submits that though permission was sought and granted by the learned MACT in the year 2017 to file a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the present claim petition was filed only in the year 2024, and notably, without disclosing the fact of such withdrawal before the learned MACT.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavati further submits that in a similar factual context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Purohit & Co. v. Khatoonbee and Another, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 783, has held that the delay in filing a claim cannot be justified solely on the ground of poverty or lack of legal awareness. Despite this, the learned Commissioner has condoned the delay of 13 years Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:42:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8197/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without appreciating the long and unexplained lapse of time.

4.2. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Shantabai Ananda Jagtap v. Jayram Ganpati Jagtap, reported in (2023) 8 SCC 171, wherein a similar claim was rejected on the ground of an unexplained delay of nine years.

4.3. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati submits that condonation of such a stale claim would now result in the Labour Court being obliged to decide the application on merits, including issues of interest and penalty, both accruing from the date of the accident in 2009, thus potentially causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. In the absence of any reasonable or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, the learned Commissioner has committed a grave error in condoning the same. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the present petition be allowed.

5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate Mr.Nanavati and on perusal of the reasons assigned in the impugned order, it emerges Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:42:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8197/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined that Workman Fatal Misc. Case No.10 of 2024 came to be filed by the wife of the deceased along with three children, out of whom one is a minor, and claimant No.5 is the aged mother of the deceased. It is contended by the claimants in the claim petition that the husband of claimant No.1 was serving as a driver and met with an accident on 17.03.2009. During the course of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries at Rajula Government Hospital. Along with the claim petition, an application for condonation of delay was also filed seeking condonation of a delay of 13 years, 4 months, and 24 days, stating inter alia that due to the sudden demise of her husband, the entire responsibility of the family came upon the illiterate claimant No.1. At the time of the accident, claimant No.1, was burdened with the care of three minor children and, in order to survive, was compelled to engage herself in labour work.

5.1. It is also contended that claimant No.4 is still a minor as on date, and that all the claimants are illiterate and ignorant of the legal process, due to which the claim petition could not be filed within the prescribed time. It is further contended that during this period, for nearly two years, the COVID- 19 pandemic prevailed, which also made it difficult for the claimants to approach the Court in time.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8197/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined The reply filed before the learned Commissioner by the present petitioner opposing the application indicates that the only contention raised was that the reasons cited for condonation are insufficient and unsatisfactory.

5.2. The contention raised by the petitioner regarding the suppression of the fact that a previous claim petition had been filed under the Motor Vehicles Act was not raised before the learned Commissioner while resisting the application for condonation of delay. In the absence of such a contention, the learned Court has not assigned any reasons dealing with the alleged suppression of facts. The order produced before this Court seeking permission to withdraw appears to be dated 21.01.2017, which was passed in the Lok Adalat, wherein permission was granted with liberty to file a claim under the Act. It is true that after the withdrawal in the year 2017, the present claim petition was filed only in the year 2024. On referring to the provisions of the Act, more particularly Section 10A, it emerges that the Commissioner is empowered to initiate suo motu inquiry about an employment accident or injury and to collect the necessary information upon receipt of intimation about such an accident Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:42:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8197/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined from any source. Rules have also been framed under the Act. As per Section 10A of the Act, the Commissioner is obliged to ensure that a rightful claim arising out of unfortunate employment injuries is not delayed or defeated on account of any technicalities or procedural lapses. In the present case, an illiterate and unsophisticated village labourer has remained unpaid and deprived of rightful compensation for a long period of 13 years. Therefore, instead of taking a purely technical view, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Commissioner has rightly exercised discretion and has properly condoned the delay by allowing the application below Exhibit 17.

5.3. On perusal of the application, more particularly the reasons assigned for the delay, it appears that the claimants are illiterate and ignorant persons. This Court is of the view that the rules of procedure and the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. The discretion exercised in this matter appears to have been exercised in a proper and sound manner, adopting a justice-oriented approach. Such an approach does not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness or capriciousness, especially when viewed in the context of the object and purpose of Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:42:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8197/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

6. In the opinion of this Court, when the cause of substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. For advancing substantial justice, the learned Court was justified in allowing the application for condonation of delay. The reliance placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Purohit (supra), where the delay of 28 years was sought to be condoned only on the ground that the claimant was a poor person with no knowledge of the law, is distinguishable. In that case, the Apex Court held that the justification offered was not sufficient; however, it was also observed that the question of reasonableness would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the other decision relied upon, namely Shantabai (supra), the relationship of employer and employee was itself under dispute, and no claim had been filed against the owner of the vehicle. In that context, the Apex Court held that the delay of nine years would be fatal in the absence of any explanation. However, in the instant case, no such dispute has been raised by the present petitioner.

7. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:42:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8197/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, in AIR 1998 SC 3222 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:

11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8197/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined

8. This Court has also referred the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3660 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:

"9. The observations as above, undoubtedly lay down the basic guidance for assessment of damage but one redeeming feature ought to be noted that compensation or damages cannot be awarded as a solatium but to assess the same with reference to loss of pecuniary benefits. In the decision last noted (Subramania Iyer [(1969) 3 SCC 64] ) this Court placed strong reliance on two old decisions of the English courts, to wit: Franklin v. South Eastern Rly. Co. [157 ER 448 : (1858) 3 H&N 211] wherein Pollock, C.B. stated:

"We do not say that it was necessary that actual benefit should have been derived, a reasonable expectation is enough and such reasonable expectation might well exist, though from the father, not being in need, the son had never done anything for him. On the other hand a jury certainly ought not to make a guess in the matter, but ought to be satisfied that there has been a loss of sensible and appreciable pecuniary benefit, which might have been reasonably expected from the continuance of life."

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8197/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined

9. Keeping in mind the above observations, as well as the beneficial and welfare-oriented nature of the Workmen's Compensation Act, this Court is of the view that the claimant cannot be denied the opportunity to secure substantial justice merely on the ground of delay. Accordingly, this Court does not find any substance in the present petition.

10. With regard to the contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Nanavati concerning the aspect of interest, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is always open for the petitioner to agitate such claim by establishing that, as there was delay in filing the claim petition, the claimant would not be entitled to interest for the relevant period. The learned Court would decide this issue in accordance with law at the appropriate stage. However, at present, this cannot be a ground for declining the application for condonation of delay.

11. Resultantly, this petition stands dismissed.

(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:42:21 IST 2025