Karnataka High Court
Banudas S/O Chandru Daigudeand ... vs Smt.Parvati Amasidda Baragudi ... on 21 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA No.201582 OF 2016 (WC)
BETWEEN:
1. BANUDAS,
S/O CHANDRU DAIGUDE
DELETED VIDE COURT
ORDER DTD 20/08/2015
DULY REPRESENTED FOR R2
AS PER SEC.2(D) OF WORKMENS
COMPENSATION ACT-1923
2. SMT. SUGARABAI,
W/O BHANUDAS DAIGUDE,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
R/O CHADCHAN, INDI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. KOUJALAGI C L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PARVATI AMASIDDA BARAGUDI
DIED BY LRS
1(A) AMASIDDA BARAGUDI,
AGED MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
2
1(B) BILENSIDDA,
S/O AMASIDDA BARAGUDI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
1(C) SOMNING,
S/O AMASIDDA BARAGUDI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
1(D) LAXMIBAI,
W/O MANSIDDA SHIRSHETTI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD
RESPONDENTS No.1(A) TO 1(D) ARE
R/O UMADI, JATH TALUK, SANGLI DISTRICT,
MAHARASHTRA(STATE)-416416.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE PVT. LTD.,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK V BARAD, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1(A) TO R1(C) IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
NOTICE TO R1(D) SERVED)
MFA FILED U/S. 30(1) OF WC ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO- ALLOW THE APPEAL, MODIFY THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED-14.10.2008
PASSED IN W.C.A.NO-100/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION-I VIJAYAPUR
AND ENHANCE THE COMPNESATION AS PRAYED FOR, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
3
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants aggrieved by the judgment and
award dated 14.10.2008 passed in WCA.No.100/2007
by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation, Sub Division-1, Vijayapur
(hereinafter referred to as 'the CWC' for short) under
Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short)
seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the CWC.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 10.09.2006 the deceased as
per the direction of the respondent has loaded the
stones in the tractor bearing registration No.MH-10/S-
167 and proceeded towards Umadi Vilalge, Jath Taluk
and accident was occurred, due to which the deceased
sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
The deceased was a driver working under the
respondent No.1 and earning Rs.4,000/- per month by
which he was maintaining himself and his family
members. The petitioners being legal representatives
of the deceased filed a petition under Section 22(2) of
the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
4. The said application was opposed by the
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company stating that
there was no relationship as employer and employee
between the deceased and respondent No.2. It is
further respondent No.2 denied the averments made
in the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
5. The CWC recorded the evidence of the
petitioners and consequently allowed the claim
petition in part and awarded a compensation of
Rs.3,17,685/-. Hence, the respondent No.2 -
Insurance Company aggrieved by the judgment and
award passed by the CWC, Vijayapur, preferred an
appeal in M.F.A.No.30710/2008 (WC) challenging
liability. The petitioners aggrieved by the judgment
and award passed by the CWC has filed this appeal
seeking for enhancement of compensation.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and also learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that the petitioners have filed an
application I.A.No.1/2016 seeking for conodonation of
delay of 2844 days in filing the appeal. In support of
the application, petitioners filed affidavit stating that
after passing the judgment the counsel appearing for
petitioners have informed the petitioners that claim
petition came to be allowed awarding a meager
compensation of Rs.3,17,685/- and advice to prefer
an appeal. But in the mean time, respondent No.2
preferred an appeal in M.F.A.No.30710/2008 before
this Court and same came to be disposed of vide order
date 19.01.2016. After, disposal of appeal filed by the
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company, the petitioners
intend to prefer an appeal as per the instructions of
their counsel. But, in the meanwhile, petitioner No.2
fell ill and was suffering from severe fevere and
jaundice and was taken treatment on village Hakim
and respondent No.2 - Insurance Company has not
deposited the amount and he has withdrawn the
compensation on 17.09.2016 due to financially
difficulty the petitioners could not file the appeal
within time. Thus, there is a delay of 2844 days is
caused in filing the appeal. Hence, on these grounds,
prays to allow the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment
and award passed by the CWC, Vijayapur and prayed
to dismiss the appeal.
9. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board and others vs. T.T.Murali Babu
reported in 2014(4) SCC 108, declined to condone
the delay of four years in approaching the Court. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Majji Sannemma
@ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors., in Civil
Appeal No.7696/2021 disposed of on 16.12.2021
relying on the judgment of the said Court in the case
of Basavaraj and another vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer reported in (2013)14 SCC 81
has observed as under:
"The expression "sufficient cause"
cannot be liberally interpreted if
negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is
attributed to the party."
It is further observed that,
"Even though limitation may harshly
affect the rights of a party but it has to be
applied with all its rigour when prescribed
by statute."
It is further observed that,-
"In case a party has acted with
negligence, lack of bonaf ides or there is
inaction then there cannot be any justified
ground for condoning the delay even by
imposing conditions."
It is observed that,
"Each application for condonation of
delay has to be decided within the
framework laid down by this Court".
It is further observed that,
"If Courts start condoning delay
where no sufficient cause is made out by
imposing conditions then that would
amount to violation of statutory principles
and showing utter disregard to the
legislature."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court has declined to
condone the delay of 1011 days in preferring the
second appeal. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalingam in
Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-
2055/2022 disposed of on 25.02.2022, held that
when it is found that the delay is not properly
explained, the application to condone the delay is
required to be dismissed. The Hon'ble Apex Court
declined to condone the delay of 465 days.
12. The petitioners have failed to show the
sufficient cause in not preferring the appeal within
time. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing the
appeal. The claim made by the petitioners is stale.
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water
Supply and Sewerage Board (supra) and in the
case of Lingeswaran (supra). I do not find any
grounds to condone the delay of 2844 days in filing
the appeal. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2016 is rejected and
consequently appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GRD
