Case Note & Summary
The case involves a claim for compensation by the legal heirs of Machindra Ananda Jagtap, who died in a road accident on 17.08.1993 while driving a jeep owned by Jayram Ganpati Jagtap and insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The claimants initially filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was pending. Later, on 02.08.2004, they filed an application under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Sangli, claiming ₹1,13,855 with interest and penalty. The Commissioner rejected the application on grounds of delay and also held it not maintainable under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court upheld the rejection on delay but reversed the finding on maintainability. The Supreme Court considered whether the delay of about 11 years should be condoned. The Court noted that the claimants were pursuing a remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act in good faith, and the delay was not intentional. The Court held that the Commissioner should have condoned the delay and decided the matter on merits. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Commissioner and the High Court and remitted the case to the Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits, directing that the delay be condoned and the claim be decided expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Condonation of Delay - Section 10 of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - Limitation - The claim petition was filed about 11 years after the accident. The Commissioner and High Court rejected it on delay. The Supreme Court held that the delay was due to the claimants pursuing remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was pending. Since the claimants were pursuing another remedy in good faith, the delay should be condoned. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits. (Paras 1-8)
B) Workmen's Compensation - Option between remedies - Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Bar on dual claims - The Commissioner held the claim not maintainable due to Section 167, but the High Court reversed that finding. The Supreme Court did not disturb that part. The issue of maintainability was not in appeal. (Paras 3, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claim petition filed under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 after a delay of about 11 years is maintainable and whether the delay should be condoned.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Commissioner and the High Court, and remitted the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits. The delay in filing the claim petition was condoned, and the Commissioner was directed to decide the claim expeditiously.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Limitation for filing claim under Employees' Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 10 of Employees' Compensation Act
- Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Option between two remedies
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 5786 of 2012
Shantabai Ananda Jagtap & anr.
Jayram Ganpati Jagtap & anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against rejection of compensation claim under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 on ground of delay.
Remedy Sought
Legal heirs of deceased workman sought compensation of ₹1,13,855 with interest and penalty for death in road accident during employment.
Filing Reason
Death of workman in road accident on 17.08.1993 while driving employer's jeep during course of employment.
Previous Decisions
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation rejected claim on 04.07.2008 on delay and maintainability; High Court upheld rejection on delay but reversed maintainability finding on 09.04.2010.
Issues
Whether the claim petition filed under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 after a delay of about 11 years is maintainable?
Whether the delay in filing the claim should be condoned?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that death occurred during employment and they were pursuing remedy under Motor Vehicles Act in good faith, hence delay should be condoned.
Respondents argued that delay was enormous and not properly explained.
Ratio Decidendi
When a claimant pursues a remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act in good faith, the delay in filing a claim under the Employees' Compensation Act should be condoned, as the claimant is not expected to file multiple claims simultaneously. The Commissioner should consider the claim on merits rather than rejecting it solely on delay.
Judgment Excerpts
The order dated 09.04.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in First Appeal No.591 of 2009 upholding the order dated 04.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Sangli has been impugned by the legal heirs of the workman.
It is a case in which an application was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Machindra Ananda Jagtap, who died in a road accident while driving jeep no. MH-10-8363 on 17.08.1993.
The Commissioner rejected the application on the ground of delay as well as on merits. The claim petition was also held to be not maintainable in view of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The High Court upheld the order touching the issue of delay and not dealing anything on merits. The High Court found that the delay being enormous, the Commissioner had rightly declined to condonation of delay. However, the claim petition was held to be maintainable.
Procedural History
The claim petition was filed on 02.08.2004 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Sangli under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner rejected it on 04.07.2008 on grounds of delay and maintainability. The claimants appealed to the High Court of Bombay, which on 09.04.2010 upheld the rejection on delay but reversed the maintainability finding. The claimants then appealed to the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 5786 of 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Employees' Compensation Act, 1923: Section 10
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 167
