Gujarat High Court
Valjibhai Godadbhai Patel ... vs Narsinhbhai Ragnathbhai ... on 16 November, 2021
Bench: A.G.Uraizee
C/CA/4534/2019 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4534 of 2019
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 31995 of 2019
================================================================
VALJIBHAI GODADBHAI PATEL (KOROT)
Versus
NARSINHBHAI RAGNATHBHAI CHODHARY
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 16/11/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. This application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to
condone delay of 1239 days which has occurred in preferring
appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 10.03.2016
passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation,
Labour Court, Palanpur in W.C. No.5/2012.
2. I have heard Mr. Makbul I. Mansuri, learned advocate
for the applicant and Mr. Rathin P. Raval, learned advocate
for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. There is no
appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1 though served.
The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company has resisted the
present application by filing reply.
3. Mr. Mansuri, learned advocate submits that after the
judgment of the Commissioner, all the papers were entrusted
to advocate for filing an appeal to challenge the order of the
Commissioner. However, the advocate did not file an appeal
before this Court. He further submits that after the dismissal
of the W.C. Application, the applicant preferred Motor
Accident Claim Petition before the MACT, Banaskantha for
compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('M.V. Act' for
short). The claims tribunal has partly allowed the claim
petition by judgment and award dated 28.02.2018. He
C/CA/4534/2019 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2021
submits that the Insurance Company has preferred First
Appeal No.2145 of 2018 against the judgment and award of
the tribunal. Wherein, the contention is taken that there was
no employee employer relationship between the applicant
and respondent No.1 herein. He, therefore, urges that the
delay may be condoned.
4. Mr. Raval, learned advocate strongly opposed this
application. He submits that instead of preferring an appeal
to challenge the order of the Commissioner, the applicant
preferred motor accident claims petition in the tribunal, the
claims tribunal has partly allowed the claim
petition/applicant, and therefore, the respondent No.2 -
Insurance Company has preferred an appeal against the said
award which is pending in this Court. He further submits
that the applicant made two unsuccessful attempts for
disbursement of the amount which the Insurance Company
has deposited in the appeal preferred by it. He, therefore,
submits that the applicant has preferred an appeal to
challenge the order of the Commissioner as he failed to get
disbursement in the appeal preferred by the Insurance
Company against the judgment and award of the claims
tribunal. He, therefore, urges that delay may not be
condoned.
5. It is undisputed fact that the claim petition preferred
by the applicant before the Commissioner for workman
compensation is dismissed as there was no relationship of
employee employer between the applicant and respondent
No.1. The applicant, thereafter, preferred a motor accident
claim petition before the motor accident claims tribunal and
the tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition against
which the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company has
C/CA/4534/2019 ORDER DATED: 16/11/2021
preferred the present appeal which is pending in this Court.
6. As noted in the foregoing, the Commissioner has
dismissed the claim petition of the applicants on the ground
that there was no relationship of employee employer
between the respondent No.2 and deceased son of the
applicant. The respondent No.2 has essentially, assailed the
judgment and award of the tribunal passed under Section
163(A) of the M.V. Act on the ground that there was no
relationship of employee employer between the respondent
No.2 and deceased son of the applicant.
7. In view thereof, I am of the considered view that great
prejudice would be caused to the applicants if delay is not
condone and the appeal to challenge the order of the
Commissioner is not condoned where can not it oblivious of
the fact that the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act
are benevolent peace of legislation. The claimants do not
stand to gain anything by showing indolence in not
preferring appeal to assail the order of the Commissioner. In
view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the delay
which has occurred in preferring appeal to challenge the
order of the Commissioner needs to be condoned.
8. In view of the above, the present application is allowed
and the delay which has occurred in preferring an appeal
the challenge the order of the Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation, Palanpur is hereby condoned. Application
stands disposed of.
(A.G.URAIZEE, J)
Manoj
