Bombay High Court
Smt Lalita Raju Chavan And Others vs Vasant Devidas Chavan And Another on 7 May, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:9994
930fa4286-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
930 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4286 OF 2016
SMT LALITA RAJU CHAVAN AND OTHERS
VERSUS
VASANT DEVIDAS CHAVAN AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Agrawal Pavankumar S., Advocate for Appellant
Mr. Rajendra Mohan Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.1 -Absent
Mr. Bodade Shrikrishna R., Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
DATE : 7th May, 2024
ORDER:
1. Heard Mr. Agrawal, the learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Bodade, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2. None present
for respondent No.1.
2. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both
sides, I have gone through the record.
3. It is a matter of record that on 04.02.2014, the learned
Commissioner for Employees' Compensation under Employees'
Compensation Act passed the impugned judgment and order and
dismissed the claim of the appellants/ claimants on ground that he has
no jurisdiction as the accident is occurred within the jurisdiction of
other court, so also the claimants failed to prove that they are residing
within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the Employees'
Compensation Act at Parbhani as well as on the count of delay.
930fa4286-16
4. In the case of (1) Morgina Begum Vs. Managing Director,
Hanuman Plantation Ltd., reported in AIR, 2008 SC 199 (2)S.K.
Saukat Ali Alias Sekho S.K. Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, 1999 (1) CLR 615 (3) 2013 (I) LLN 659, it has been
held that under Section 21 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923,
the claimant can apply before the Commissioner having jurisdiction
over the area where the claimant ordinarily resides or before the
Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident
taken place.
5. In the case in hand, though the learned Commissioner under
the Employees' Compensation Act at Parbhabni recorded finding that
deceased Raju Bandu Chavan, husband of claimant No.1, son of
claimant No.6 and father of claimant Nos. 2 to 5 was working as driver
at the relevant time and he succumbed to accidental injury, but the
claim petition of the claimants dismissed on the ground of delay and
jurisdictional point.
6. Since the accident did not take place within the jurisdiction
of the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, Parbhani,
as per provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, the
proceeding could have been returned to the claimant for presentation
before the competent Court having jurisdiction. However, in the present
case, instead of returning the claim petition, it has been dismissed.
930fa4286-16
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is hereby quashed and set
aside. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Parbhani is
hereby directed to return the proceeding to the claimants for
presentation before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation,
Akola in whose jurisdiction alleged accident occurred.
7. The matter is referred to the Commissioner for Employees'
Compensation, Akola under whose jurisdiction the accident occurred.
8. First appeal is accordingly disposed off. No order as to costs.
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )
JPChavan
