IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR MFA.No.7325 OF 2016 (WC) BETWEEN:
MR ESHWARAPPA B S/O. HUCHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS STAFF, MASTER TECHNICIAN SHOPS DEPARTMENT K.I.O.C.L. LTD., KUDREMUKHA R/O. HOUSE NO.366, B-TYPE 2ND SECTOR, OPP. KAIRE MARKET KUDREMUKA, MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577142 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SACHIN B.S.,ADV.,) AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KIOCL, 2ND BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560034 ... RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09.09.2016 PASSED ON ECA NO.120/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Appellant is the claimant, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 09.09.2016, made in ECA No.120/2014 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, dismissing the claim petition filed by him, filed this appeal.
2. Appellant filed the claim petition contending that he was working as a Master technician at KIOCL Ltd., Kudremukh. On 02.04.2008 at about 09:45 p.m. while he was discharging his duty, he met with an accident. Immediately, after the accident, he was shifted to KMC hospital, Manipal. He was taken treatment therein from 02.04.2008 to 07.04.2008. He claims that he has spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards treatment. Prior to the accident, he was drawing a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. In view of the injury sustained, he became permanently disabled to do the work as he was doing earlier. The accident occurred during the course and out of employment. Hence, he sought for compensation.
3. In response to the notice issued by the trial Court, the respondent entered appearance and filed the written statement, denied the occurrence of the accident, injury sustained by the claimant and disability he has suffered. Further, they have contended that as on today, the claimant is working in the same department and got increment also. There is no loss of earning capacity and also there is inordinate delay in filing the claim petition. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed necessary issues and considered I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Further, it has held that the alleged accident occurred on 02.04.2008 and the claimant has sustained injury to his little finger. The claim petition has been filed in the year 2014, after lapse of six years. No document has been produced to show that he claimed compensation from his employer. Under the Employee’s Compensation Act, the claim petition has to be filed within a period of two years. But there is inordinate delay in filing the petition. The reasons assigned in I.A.No.1 does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, dismissed the claim petition on the delay and laches. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
5. Sri B.S.Sachin, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law. The Proviso to Section 10 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, (for short ‘the Act’) provides for condonation of delay that the Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given, or the claim has not been preferred, in due time as provided in this sub-section, if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or prefer the claim, as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause. As per the proviso to Section 10 of the Act, the Commissioner can entertain the claim petition by considering the sufficient cause explained for condonation of delay in filing the petition. Further, he contends that though, the claimant has given representation to his employer to pay compensation, they had not taken any steps to compensate the claimant. In the circumstances, the trial court ought to have condoned the delay and awarded reasonable compensation. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the judgment and order of the trial court by allowing this appeal.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order and other relevant documents.
7. The record clearly discloses that the accident occurred on 02.04.2008 during the course and out of employment. Since he has sustained injury to his little finger, he has taken treatment in KMC hospital, Manipal, The Doctor who has treated the claimant assessed the disability to an extent of 5% only to the whole body. The appellant has not produced any documents to show that he has made representation to the employer seeking compensation. For the injury he has sustained on 02.04.2008, the claimant has lead evidence but no document has been marked in this regard. Ex.R5 produced by the respondent clearly discloses that subsequently after the accident, the claimant has got promotion to the higher post and he continued in his employment in the department of KIOCL Ltd., No document has been produced to show that he was prevented from filing the claim petition. Section 10 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, contemplates as under:
‘No claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner hereinafter provided as soon as practicable after the happening there off and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or the in case of death within two years from the date of death’.
8. In the instant case, the claimant has sustained injury on 02.04.2008. The petition has been preferred after lapse of 06 years of the accident i.e., in the year 2014. No sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of said inordinate delay in filing the claim petition. The trial Court taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, dismissed the claim petition on the ground of delay and laches. Hence, I find there is no infirmity or irregularity in the judgment and order passed by the trial Court.
The appellant has not made out a case for interference with the impugned judgment and order.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ