High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
M/s India First Logistics Ltd., East Mum v. Pooja Kapila & Anr - FAO-5271-2005  RD-P&H 227 (20 January 2006)
F.A.O. No.5271 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 7.2.2006
M/s India First Logistics Ltd., East Mumbai Vs.
Pooja Kapila and another
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present:- Shri R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.S.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
C.M. No.24498-CII of 2005
This application has been moved with a prayer to condone the delay of 237 days in filing the appeal. The application is accompanied by an affidavit, wherein sufficient reasons have been given to file appeal at a belated stage.
In view of the above, this application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
F.A.O. No.5271 of 2005
On request, appeal is taken up on Board for hearing.
Vide order under challenge, Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, `the Act') granted compensation to the tune of Rs.4,23,580/- along with interest and also imposed penalty, on account of death of Mr. Navin Kapila, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2. So far as relations of master and servant between the appellant and the deceased is concerned, the F.A.O. No.5271 of 2005 (O&M) 
same is not in dispute. Shri R.S.Bajaj, counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the claim being time barred has wrongly been entertained by the Court below. Argument raised is liable to be rejected.
It is apparent from the records that before filing claim application, many letters were written by the respondents. As per provisions of the Act, it is incumbent upon an employer, to pay compensation, immediately after death in accident of an employer. The same was not done in the present case despite notice sent by the respondents. By taking note of those letters and notice, delay was condoned by the Court below in filing claim application after the period of two years.
This Court feels that in view of proviso to Section 10 of the Act, Court below was justified in doing so. Furthermore to say that the deceased was not a workman, no evidence was led by the appellant in that regard. By taking note of duties being performed by the deceased, the Court below has held that he falls within the definition of a "workman". Quantum of compensation awarded is perfectly justified, the deceased was a young man of 25 years and was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m., at the time when he died in an unfortunate accident. Claimants are widow and her minor child.
In view of the facts mentioned above, no case is made out for any interference in pure findings of fact given by the Court below.
February 7, 2006 ( JASBIR SINGH )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.