Delhi High Court
J.L. Arora vs Comm. Workmen'S Compensation And ... on 26 March, 2008
Author: P Nandrajog
Bench: P Nandrajog
JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
CM No. 4392/2006 in FAO No. 98/2006
1. At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellant prays for adjournment. Counsel states that the arguing counsel Shri Manish Kumar Siryal is not available today. Counsel states that the counsel has gone to Allahabad to argue a case.
2. The instant matter was adjourned for today on 28.9.2007. I see no reason why counsel for the appellant proceeded to Allahabad when he was aware that the instant appeal is listed today.
3. I have declined the request for adjournment. My reason for declining adjournment is my practical experience sitting on the roster where first appeals and second appeals are listed. First appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation and the Railway Claims Tribunal are being listed in my Court. I have been noticing that in cases of grievous injuries and death, the claimants are unable to sustain themselves by living in the city of Delhi and await the outcome of their appeal. In each and every case where the employer or the insurance company has challenged the order of compensation I note that for approximately a year counsel for the claimants appears and thereafter stops appearing probably for the reason the claimants leave the city of Delhi and the lawyer loses interest.
4. Even in the instant case this has happened. Counsel for the claimaint, Shri R.K.Singh, last put in appearance on 18.7.2006 and since then has disappeared.
5. Let me highlight the problem with reference to the facts of this case. The workman, Kishan Deo, died while on duty on 13.1.1988. After a protractive legal battle before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, his widow and minor children succeeded in being awarded a paltry compensation of Rs.66,301.20 with interest @ 6% from the date of the accident till payment. 50% of the principal sum was also awarded as penalty.
6. The poor widow and her children have yet to reap the benefit of their fruits in as much as on 23.3.2006 interim order was passed staying execution of the order.
7. The award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation reveals that the widow had to shift to her village Jhikna in the State of Madhya Pradesh after her husband died. Obviously she had to. How could she have sustained herself in the city of Delhi where the cost of living is very high and jobs are hard to come.
8. Vide CM No. 4392/2006 it is stated that there is 100 days delay in filing the appeal and that the same should be condoned. The only reason given for the delay to be condoned is that the appellant is aged 61 years and has been bed ridden since October, 2005 due to severe back pain problems and various other ailments.
9. What are the other ailments? None has been disclosed.
10. In the contemporary world with improved health facilities, 61 years is hardly an age. It could well be said that at 61 years one enters the youth of old age.
11. It would be relevant to note that the appellant has suffered an ex-parte award. The award is dated 30.6.2003. From the award it has to be noted that the appellant was duly served and after entering upon appearance filed a written statement but stopped appearing since the year 1998.
12. In the application, in para 3, it is stated that the appellant filed the written statement on 21.5.1996. It is stated in the application, vide para 5, that the counsel let down the appellant by not appearing before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and not informing the appellant about the award.
13. At this stage, it may be noted that the delay in filing the appeal is not 100 days as is stated in the application. The delay is of 2 years and 184 days.
14. The order dated 30.6.2003 has been challenged by way of an instant appeal filed on 21.3.2006.
15. What was the appellant doing for all these years has not been explained. Shifting the blame on the counsel is too easy. Why did the appellant not contact the counsel all these years? No explanation has been given.
16. Even otherwise I wonder how can the appellant ever succeed in the appeal when he led no evidence and even did not cross-examine the witnesses of the claimant. A perusal of the appeal shows that the appellant is questioning the award with respect to his defense as if the same was proved.
17. The appellant has not even made an attempt to move an application before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for recall of the ex-parte award.
18. Everything is being done in a most haphazard manner.
19. Be that as it may, 2 years and 184 days delay is a substantial delay. The ground that the appellant was bed ridden from October, 2005 would at best entitle the appellant to have the delay condoned with effect from October, 2005. What about the prior period?
20. As noted above, for said period delay is sought to be got condoned by shifting the burden on the shoulders of the counsel. Why did the appellant never contact his counsel after 1996 and till the award was pronounced has not been explained. It is obviously a case of highly negligent litigant.
21. It is stated in the application that as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court meritorious claims should not be thrown out on account of delay.
22. I wonder what is the merit in the instant appeal? The appellant has failed to justify the defense. The appellant has failed to cross-examine the witnesses of the claimants. Given the evidence before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation the award is absolutely perfect.
23. I see no cause shown to condone the enormous delay of 2 years and 184 days.
24. The application is dismissed.
Since delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
No costs.
LCR be returned.
