The High Court · 2025

2. Sri Madari Pedda Muthyam, S/o.Linganna Labour, R/o. Lakkampally Village, Nandipet M , Aged about 38 years, Occ. andal, Nizamabad District. ...APPELLANTS/ Applicants AND

1. Sri G.Gangaram, S/o. Gangaram, No. AP 25 H 4496 R/o.H.No.1-16 Nizamabad District. Aged. Major, Occ. Owner of Tractor bearing Talveda Village, Nandipet Mandal,

2. The United lndia lnsurance Branch Office, [Mayuri Hotel Company Ltd, Rep. by its Branch fManager, , Godown Road, Nizamabad. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 ...RESPONDENTS/ ResPondents petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitiqn, the High Cou( may be pleased to condone the delay of (4141 ) days in filing the above C.tVl.A., agjinst ih" Ord"r Dated 10-09-2008 in W.C.Case No 4/2006 (F) passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, at Nizamabad, pending disposal of the above c.tvl.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. AZAR SRAVAN KUMAR counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Ch. VENKAT NARAYANA The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: . - n-.r.:. ...' . -jtit.el-j. .,r. j IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE S?ATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO I.A.No.2 OF 2O2L in/and C.M.A.No.348 of 2O2L DATED THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025, Between: Smt. Madari Gangu and another Sri G. Gangaram and another COMMOI{ ORDER: . Petitioners/Appellants Respondents / Respondents Herrd Mf s Azar Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for appellants and Sri C:h. Venkat Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. Th: application uide I.A.No.2 of 2O2l has been f-rled to condone the delalr of 4L41 days in filing the appeal assailing the order dated

10.O9.2008 in W.C. Case No.4 of 2006 (F) passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad (hereinafter will be referred to as "Tribunal").

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed W.C.Case No.4 of :1006 (F) before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation on account of death of one Sri Madari Muthyam, who met with an accident while driving the tractor bearing No.AP-25-H-4496 on 17.o9.2oo2. The learned Commissioner, after due enquiry and examining all the facts of \ 2 the case and the material on record, holding that the death occurred in the course of employment, has allowed the claim by granting a compensation of Rs.4,42,740/-. Aggrieved thereby, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimants with a dclay of 4141 days.

4. Thc reasons assigned in thc said application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the said delay is that they have requested their previous counsel, who appeared in the claim petition, to file cross objections in C.M.A No.484 of 2OO9 filed by respondent No.2-lnsurance Company before this Honble High Court against the order in W.C.Case No.4 of 2006 (F) by handing over all the records and they were under the impression that their previous counsel has filed the said cross objections. Recently, when they approached the office of the previous counsel, they came to know that previous counsel has expired few years ago and the said counsel did not file any cross-objections before this Court in CMA.No.484 of 2OO9. Thereafter, after collecting the documents from the office of the previous counsel, filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation against the order dated 10.09.2008 in W.C.Case No.4 of 2006 (F), as such there is a delay of 4l4l days. However, pending adjudication of the underlying application, the appeal filed by the respondent No.2-lnsurance Company in CMA.No.484 of 2OO9 was dismissed on 03.O2.2023.

5. As seen from the above facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of.the application I.A.No.2 of 2021, the delay is not properly / / iI : Li ; t t I I I -) explained and there is inordinate cielal' cf 4141 days, at least the claimants ought to have shown proximate cause in preferring the appeal wittr such abnormal delaY'

6.|nPerthapatisubbaReddg(Died)bgl*galRepresentatiues& others v. speciag Deputg collector (LA)I, the Hon'ble Supreme court held that condonation of delay cannot be granted on equitable considerations or on grounds of hardship, and that a right or remedy not e>;ercised or availed within the prescribed period or flor a prolonged pcriod, mtrst come to an end or cease to exist' Thu s, for this Court to consicler the delay undcr the provisions o[ 7. Section 5 of Limitation Act, the period of inordinate delay should be sufficient.y explained, and in prescnt case, no proper reasons are assigned by the petitioner-claimants for condonation of such inordinate delay, ev3n a proximate cause is not shown for condontion of delay in presenting the aPPeal. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered view that the 8. petitioners-claimants have not assigned proper reasons for condonation of inordjnate delay of 4141 days in presenting the appeal against the order of thc W.C. Case No.4 of 2006 (F) dated 10.09'2008, and thus, the interlocutory application is Liable to be rejected' t lzOz+112 Suprcme Court Cases 336 4 ( 9- Accordingly, the Interlccutory Application uide IA.No.2 of 2o2r is dismissed. consequently, the civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands rejected. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- T . KRISHNA KUMAR JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To,

1. The Commissioner for Workmens' Com'p'ensation Act and Asst' Commissioner of Labour, ,i'lii."-.rUlO'1*ith records lf any) 2. One CC to SRI' AZAR SRAVAN KUMAR' Advocate [OPUC] t.n 3. Two CD CoPies Wltrl/psl ,, "t ,? I l 1t1fi8 'l I finfi atr * * I I I I I I I I I I i I 'i I I I i I I i I i I I i i i I HIGH COURT DATED:1211?-12025 COMMON ORDER I.A. N0. 2 0F 2121 IN/AND CMA.No.348 ol2O21 DISMISSING 1'l-ll: I.A. NO.2 Ot;2OZl AND REJECTING TI-ll: (llvl;\ b \/ /