Department Of Telecommunication vs Deelip S/O Hari Mogle
2007 Latest Caselaw 909 Bom

JUDGMENT

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.

1. This appeal arises out of order passed by the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner whereby, compensation was awarded to respondent on account of the disability suffered by him while in the appellant's employment.

2. The respondent was working as a lineman with the appellant. On May 16, 1999, while he was performing duty at telephone pole, he fell down due to faulty telephone wire connection. He sustained injuries on both the legs, chest and back side. He was treated as indoor patient for about one month at the Government Hospital, Nanded. He was required to take further treatment at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. He was unable to do his work and, therefore, was relieved from job. He pleaded with the department for payment of compensation. A part of his medical expenditure was reimbursed. However, his demand for compensation was not favourably considered. Hence, he filed application before the Compensation Commissioner - Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nanded. The learned Commissioner held that the workman sustained 100% disability and was entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,41,992/- along with interest. The application was granted accordingly.

3. Mr. Sonawane, learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the application was barred by limitation in view of provisions of Section 10(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He further pointed out that no application was moved for delay condonation. He would submit that Limitation Act would be applicable and the application would come within the ambit of Article 137 of the Limitation Act. He seeks to rely on certain observations in The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma . He would further submit that the Compensation Commissioner committed serious error while omitting to frame necessary issue regarding the nature of disability and loss of earning capacity. He urged to allow the appeal. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. S.S. Patil, would support the impugned judgment.

4. The points for determination are:

(i) Whether the Compensation Commissioner committed serious error while entertaining the application which was barred by limitation. ?

(ii) Whether the omission to frame relevant issue regarding loss of earning capacity would vitiate the proceedings. ?

My findings on both the above points are in the negative, for reasons discussed hereinafter.

5. Before I proceed to consider rival contentions as regards the question of limitation, it may be stated that the purpose of Section 10 is to provide appropriate notice of the claim in question. The incident occurred on 16-5-1999. There is evidence on record to show that the respondent persuaded the Department to grant him compensation after his services were terminated. He pleaded from time to time and urged for grant of appropriate compensation. He gave notice dated 21-8-2001 but the same was not favourably considered. The purpose of Section 10 appears to provide time limit as a general Rule. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has discretion to entertain the claim, even though it is barred by limitation, if he is satisfied that the failure to give notice or prefer the claim within the prescribed period was due to sufficient cause. This proviso appended to Sub-clause (1) of Section 10 gives discretionary power to the Commissioner in an appropriate case to consider the application irrespective of delay. The provision enumerated under Section 10 does not require any separate application to be filed for condonation of the delay. In the present case, the Commissioner has duly considered the reasons and has exercised his discretion in the matter of entertaining the application beyond period of 2 years. The delay was not inordinate as such. It was noticed that due to injuries caused to both the legs, the claimant was paralysed. He was unable to move and was bedridden for considerable period. The Compensation Commissioner considered the documents (Exhs. 34 to 38) which would show that correspondence was going on between the parties regarding the claim for medical bills and the nature of disability. It was stated by the claimant that he was assured reasonable compensation which ultimately was not paid. It is probable, therefore, that the claimant did not approach the Compensation Commissioner immediately because he believed that his claim will be settled by the Department. Consequently, it is difficult to say that the application was untenable because it was filed after the period of 2 years. I do not find any substantial reason to interfere with the discretion used by the Compensation Commissioner.

6. Though no specific issue was framed regarding the nature of disability and loss of earning capacity yet the Compensation Commissioner has duly considered the relevant aspects. The issue is implicit in the context of issue regarding the quantum of compensation payable. The Compensation Commissioner held that there was 100% disablement and loss of earning capacity because the claimant lost movement of both the legs and was relieved from the job. Obviously, mere technical defect of omission to frame the relevant issue would not be sufficient to disturb the findings of the Commissioner. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I do not find any substantial reason to interfere with the impugned order.

7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. C.A. disposed of.