← Library
Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/525/2020partly allowed

The Manager v. M. Raman

2020-10-08Honourable Mr Justice N. Seshasayee2 pages

C.R.P.(MD)No.525 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.10.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE C.R.P.(MD)No.525 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD)No.3350 of 2019 The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Zenith House, Keshavrao Khade Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai, Represented by its Legal Manager, C.Uma Shankar.

... Petitioner/2nd Respondent /2nd Respondent vs.

1.M.Raman 2.Sigappi ..1st & 2nd Respondents /Petitioners /Petitioners 3.A.L.Rajendran ..3rd respondent/1st respondent /1st respondent PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the Employee's Compensation Commissioner Tribunal, Dindigul in I.A.No.59 of 2018 in E.C.No.(un-numbered) of 2018 dated 18.12.2019. .

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh For R1 & R2 : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the order passed in I.A.No.59 of 2018 in an unnumbered claim petition filed by the claimants before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Employees Compensation Act. Vide its order, the Tribunal has condoned the delay of 2511 days in preferring the claim petition. This is challenged by the Insurance Company in this petition.

2.Heard both sides.

3.The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the claimants did not reside in the address given and the Insurance Company contents that the entire claim is fraudulent. This apart, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

C.R.P.(MD)No.525 of 2020 there is also a question of territorial jurisdiction involved in this matter.

4.So far as the contentions of the revision petitioner about the alleged fraud or territorial jurisdiction is concerned, that is one on merit and these issues are left open for the revision petitioner to challenge at the appropriate stage of the proceedings before the Commissioner. Further, the Employees Compensation Act is a beneficiary legislation and any delay in filing any claim petition must be viewed with certain decree of leniency. Having said that, the delay of 2511 days is huge and therefore, the Insurance Company, which also runs on public money should not be mulcted with a liability to pay interest in the eventuality of the claimants making out a case for obtaining compensation.

5.Hence, this petition is partially allowed and the order of the tribunal dated 18.12.2019 in I.A.No.59 of 2018 is confirmed with a modification that the claimants would not be entitled to any interest for the delay period on 2511 days in the eventuality of they succeeding in their claim petition. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar () // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ta/tsg-2 To 1.The Employee's Compensation Commissioner Tribunal, Dindigul.

2.The Section Officer V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.(2 Copies) +1 CC to M/s.P. PETHU RAJESH, Advocate ( SR-19655[F] dated 09/10/2020 ) +1 CC to M/s.N. SUDHAGAR NAGARAJ, Advocate ( SR-19675[F] dated 09/10/2020 ) C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.525 of 2020 08.10.2020 SMV(CO) NR (02/11/2020) 2P : 6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2