Gujarat High Court
Shamjibhai Jerambhai Oganiya vs Satyasai Petroleum on 7 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4819/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
4819 of 2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 15589 of 2024
=============================================
SHAMJIBHAI JERAMBHAI OGANIYA
Versus
SATYASAI PETROLEUM & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. VISHAL N PANDIT(7007) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Vishal Pandit, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. K.V. Gadhia, learned advocate for the respondent no.2. Notice issued by this Court upon the respondent no. 1 is reported to have been duly served upon, however no appearance has been entered on behalf of respondent no.1. Looking to the prayer sought for in the present application, the present application is taken up for hearing in absence of respondent no.1 with the aid of the learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. Learned advocate at the outset, has invited my attention to the averments made in the application and has submitted that the treatment of the applicant is continued since long. The applicant was not aware about the legal remedy provided under the law. He has further submitted that the applicant has good case on merits and therefore, right to avail remedy of appeal for seeking enhancement of compensation may not Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:21:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4819/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined be curtailed on the technical ground of delay.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Gadhia for the respondent no.2 has vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions and has pointed out that no sufficient cause has been made out looking to the averments made in the application.
4. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the averments made in the application, it transpires that the impugned judgment and award was pronounced on 12.04.2022, whereby, the learned Workman Compensation Commissioner has partly allowed the claim of the present applicant holding the respondents jointly and severely liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 67,846/- without interest and penalty with costs. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the applicant - workman has approached this Court by way of present appeal thereby praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation as well as non grant of interest and penalty as claimed for. The applicant has submitted that he is aged around 56 years and prior to occurrence of accident he was engaged as driver. Because of the accident he is facing difficulties in his day to day activities and on account of brain injuries sustained by him, his treatment has been prolonged . It further transpires from the record that the applicant is residing at village Tagdi and he was not having resources to approach in appeal after pronouncement of the judgment. Having advised by the advocate and having became aware about the legal remedy being available, the certified copy of the order was applied for. The other relevant documents were Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:21:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4819/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined sought for. The applicant has thereafter approached the learned advocate to prefer appeal before this Court. In the process, time was consumed.
5. Noticing the aforesaid explanation offered, it cannot be said that no reasonable explanation has been offered by the applicant whereby the case of the applicant cannot be considered for condonation of delay by imputing gross negligence or inaction. Looking to the fact that the dismissal of the present application would amount to taking away remedy of statutory right of appeal, noticing the nature of dispute involved, taking liberal view, the delay of 697 days caused in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. The delay is condoned on the condition that the applicant shall not be entitled to interest for the interregnum period till the registration of the appeal in the event the applicant succeeds in the captioned appeal.
6. With this observations, present application is allowed.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 05:21:01 IST 2025