Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:11250 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 528 of 2024 1 - Smt. Mamta Mishra W/o Late Rajkumar Mishra Aged About 33 Years R/o Of MIGS 249, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Tanushka Mishra D/o Late Rajkumar Mishra Aged About 9 Years R/o Of MIGS 249, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Mamta Mishra). 3 - Chirag Mishra S/o Late Rajkumar Mishra Aged About 2 Years R/o Of MIGS 249, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Mamta Mishra). versus ... Appellants 1 - Chandrabhushan Yadav S/o Vikram Rawat Yadav R/o Through Jaylal Sahu, Behind Employment Office, Bandhwapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 – IFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Manager, Third Floor, Lalganga Shopping Mall GE Road, Raipur Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
It is settled law that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties, rather they are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. 11. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy1 observed that the sufficient cause has to be construed liberally especially when the delay is not deliberate and mala fide. Paras 11 & 12 of the said decision are as under : 11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitation newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the Courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to 1 (1998) 7 SCC 123 5 litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. 12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari {AIR 1969 SC 575} and State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality {AIR 1972 SC 749}.” 12. In B.S. Sheshagiri Setty and others Versus State of Karnataka and others2, their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that when what is at stake, is justice, then a technical or pedantic approach should not be adopted by the Courts to do justice when there is miscarriage of justice caused to a public litigant. It is apt to reproduce the following observations:- “28. If a statute does not prescribe the time limit for exercise of revisional power, it must be exercised within a reasonable time frame. In the instant case, it is evident that constant litigation has been carried on by the appellants, and therefore they cannot be accused of suddenly waking up after 13 years to claim their land. Further, in the context of limitation, it has been held by this Court in a catena of cases that when what is at stake is justice, then a technical or pedantic approach should not be adopted by the Courts to do justice when there is miscarriage of justice caused to a public litigant. ” 13. Having considered the law laid down by the Apex Court and further considering the fact that case pertains to Employee’s Compensation Act, the 2(2016) 2 SCC 123 6 Commissioner-Cum-Labour Court, Raipur ought to have condoned the delay in filing the claim petition, by taking liberal approach, however, it has taken a strict view and dismissed the claim of the appellants/claimants holding that it was barred by limitation, but the same is not found to be in accordance with law, hence, it deserves to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, instant appeal is allowed and impugned judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner-Cum-Labour Court No.1, Raipur in Case No.36/E.C. Act/2016/Fatal, is set aside and the finding recorded in respect of issue No.6 that the claim petition is barred by limitation, is also set aside. The question of law is answered in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Since the assessment of the final amount has not been done by the Commissioner-Cum- Labour Court, Raipur, therefore, the matter is remitted back to it with a direction that actual amount of compensation payable to the claimants be considered and decided in accordance with law in respect of issued No.5. 15. Record of the concerned Labour Court be returned forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini
Arguments
For Appellants : For Respondent No.1 : For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. PR Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate Notice unserved Patankar, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 06.3.2025 1. This misc. appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth ‘the Act 1923’) against judgment dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure-A/1) passed by Commissioner Employee’s Compensation Act, Labour Court No.01, Raipur (CG) in Case BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.03.07 17:32:37 +0530 2 No.36/E.C. Act/2016/Fatal, whereby claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 22 of the Act 1923, has been rejected on the ground of barred by limitation. 2. Facts of the case, in brief are that, Raj Kumar Mishra was the driver of respondent No.1 and he met with an accident on 21.12.2011 while driving the vehicle bearing registration No.CG 04 HC 6663 owned by respondent No.1 and succumbed to the injuries. The appellants/claimants filed claim petition under Section 22 of the Act 1923 against the respondents/non- applicants. 3. The respondents/non-applicants filed their written statement denying the substantive facts. The learned Commissioner-Cum-Labour Court, Raipur framed issues, recorded evidence and after considering the evidence and contention of the parties, vide impugned judgment dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants holding therein that it was barred by limitation, hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that Raj Kumar Mishra died on 21.12.2011 and because of ill advise, the appellant filed claim petition under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 07.8.2012, bearing No. MACT No.193/2012, which was withdrawn with the permission of the Court on 14.6.2013 with liberty to file claim petition before the competent authority. He would further submit that, the appellant, being a mother of two minor children, could not contact any counsel, therefore, the delay of about 07 months in filing the claim petition earlier and two years subsequent to withdrawal of the case was occurred, which is bonafide and not malafide. He further submits that the claimants/appellants has lost their bread winner, therefore, the learned Labour Court ought to have taken liberal view in condoning the delay, but 3 without considering aforesaid facts, it has dismissed the claim of the appellants on the ground of time barred, hence, impugned judgment may be set aside and case may be remitted back to the Labour Court for proper computation of compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that as per Section 10 (1) of the Act 1923, period for filing claim petition in case of death is two years, but the appellants have filed instant claim case after about more than two years even after deducting period lapsed before the MACT Court. He further submits that the cause shown by the appellant to condone the delay in filing the claim petition is not sufficient, hence, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, hence, the misc. appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of concerned Labour Court. 7. The substantial question of law arises for adjudication of this appeal is as under:- “ Whether the finding recorded by the Commissioner-Cum-Labour Court, Raipur that the claim petition filed by the claimants is barred by limitation, is perverse and illegal?” 8. Period of filing of claim petition under the Act 1923 has been contemplated under Section 10. As per Section 10(1) of the above Act, in death cases, such period of filing claim petition is two years, but as per last proviso of aforesaid clause, the Commissioner may decide any claim for compensation even after due time as provided in this sub section, if he is satisfied that failure shown to file claim was due to sufficient cause. 9. In the instant case, though the delay in filing the claim petition is about 4 3 years after deducting the period lapsed before MACT Court as the claimants had filed claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, Raipur bearing Claim case No.193/12 on 07.8.2012, which was withdrawn on 14.6.2013. After withdrawal of the MACT case, the claimants filed instant claim petition under Section 22 of the Act 1923 on 24.5.2016 i.e. after about more than 35 months. Though, there is delay in filing the claim petition, but the Act 1923 has been enacted for welfare of the downtrodden people/labourers, thus, its purpose is benevolent. Therefore, while considering the prayer to condone the delay, liberal approach be adopted. 10.