Uoi & Anr. vs Kalpa Suri & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 2397 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No. 165-166/2006
%                                                         12th May, 2014

UOI & ANR.                                          ......Appellants
                          Through:       Mr. R.V.Sinha and Mr. A.S.Singh,
                                         Advocates.


                          VERSUS

KALPA SURI & ANR.                                         ...... Respondents
                          Through:       None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee's

Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act') impugning the judgment of the

Commissioner dated 1.6.2006 which has allowed the claim petition filed by

the respondent herein and who is the widow of the deceased employee Sh.

Ram Prasad.


2.    The facts of the case are that the deceased was employed by the

appellant as an electrician. He was 46 years as on 6.2.1997, the date of the

accident. On 6.2.1997, he was doing electrical work in the Air Force Station

FAO 165-166/2006                                               Page 1 of 4
 as per instructions from the superiors when he fell down from the stairs on

which he was working and suffered fatal injuries. Sh. Ram Prasad was

admitted to Batra Hospital, New Delhi where he died on the same day. In

the police station, DD entry nos.17 and 24 dated 6.2.1997 were recorded

with respect to the accident.


3.            The appellant contested the case and prayed for dismissal of the

petition on the ground of the same being time barred, and also that the

deceased Ram Prasad was under the influence of liquor/drugs and

consequently, there is no liability of the respondent as per Section 3(1)(b)(i)

of the Act.


4.            Since there was a delay in filing the claim petition inasmuch as,

accident happened on 6.2.1997, and the claim petition was filed in October

2005, i.e after a delay of 8 years, respondent filed an application seeking

condonation of delay in terms of fifth proviso to Section 10(1). Condonation

of delay was sought on the ground that respondent had sought

compassionate employment of her son, and which was ultimately denied in

2003 and thereafter within two years (two years being the period of

limitation under Section 10 of the Act) the claim petition was filed.



FAO 165-166/2006                                                Page 2 of 4
 5.           So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, it may be noted

that to the application filed for condonation of delay, the appellant filed no

reply. Therefore, in a way, the application was really uncontested. In any

case, even when this averment was made in the claim petition by the

respondent that delay was on account of having applied for compassionate

appointment of her son, and which when rejected resulted in filing the claim

petition under the Act, this aspect stands admitted in the reply to para-10 of

the claim petition in the written statement. In the peculiar facts of this case

therefore in my opinion, there were sufficient reasons for condoning of delay

and accordingly, I do not find any substantial question of law arising under

Section 30 of the Act for setting aside the finding and conclusion of fact

with respect to condonation of delay.


6.           The second argument which is urged before this Court is that

appellant is not liable because the employee was under the influence of

drinks/drugs. No doubt, such an averment is made in the written statement,

however, when we see the DD entry which is lodged with respect to the

incident, Ex.PW1/5, it is seen that one of the employees of the appellant

namely Sh. Sunil Kaur, Superintendant MES himself made statement that

the deceased died on account of falling from the          stairs     while doing

FAO 165-166/2006                                                   Page 3 of 4
 electrical work and there is no statement in the DD entry that the deceased

Ram Prasad was under the influence of drinks/drugs. Therefore appellant

has not proved on record its defence of the deceased employee being under

the influence of drinks/drugs and on the contrary there is an admission of the

employee/appellant that the deceased died on account of a fall from the

stairs while doing electrical work.


7.           In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for

this appeal to be entertained under Section 30, and which is therefore

dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




MAY 12, 2014                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib