Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO 56/2019
Date of Decision: 17.04.2023 IN THE MATTER OF:
SHYAMA DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. R.K. Nain and Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advocates
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on behalf of the appellants seeking condonation of delay of 294 days in filing the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after the death of deceased, the appellants being widow and minor children, had no source of income and had been facing financial hardship which caused the delay in their approaching the advocate for filing the present appeal.
3. It is worthwhile to note that in Mohsina & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported as MANU/DE/2465/2017 a delay of 804 days in filing of the appeal was condoned by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, taking into account poor economic status of the appellants/claimants. Relevant excerpt from the decision is reproduced hereunder:-
4. In view of the aforementioned submissions, the application is allowed and the delay of 294 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
5. The application is disposed of.
1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, the appellants have assailed the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation in Case No. WCD/2/NW/2016/852, titled as Smt. Shyama Devi & Ors. v. Ujjal Saha & Anr. whereby the appellants’ claim petition was dismissed.
2. Mr. Chandan Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claim application was filed under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) by the legal heirs of deceased i.e., late Mr. Srawan Kumar Yadav @ Srawan Yadav. It is contended that instead of considering the claim petition on merits, the same was dismissed on technical ground of jurisdiction.
3. Ms. Archana Gaur, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
5. The brief facts, as noted by the Trial Court in the impugned order are that the claimant had sought death compensation by claiming that the death of her husband occurred out and in the course of employment.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that while the deceased was a permanent resident of District Darbangha, Bihar, the incident took place in West Bengal.
7. Before proceeding further, I deem it apposite to refer to Section 21 of the Act, which reads as under:-
8. There is no gainsaying that labour statutes such as the EC Act constitute ‘beneficial legislation’ for the welfare of workmen and should be liberally constituted in their favour. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Jaya Biswal and Others v. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Another reported as (2016) 11 SCC 201 has opined thus:-
21. Thus, the EC Act is a social welfare legislation meant to benefit the workers and their dependents in case of death of workman due to accident caused during and in the course of employment should be construed as such.”
9. Insofar as territorial jurisdiction in accident claims is concerned, reference is profitably made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others reported as (2016) 3 SCC 43. The said case related to a motor accident claim where the Tribunal passed the award in favour of the claimant. The insurance company challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal before the Calcutta High Court. It is claimed that since the accident had taken place at Hoogly and the claimant resided at Hoogly, jurisdiction of Tribunal at Kolkata was not made out. The High Court allowing the appeal held that the factum of the insurance company having an office address at Kolkata was not good enough to attract jurisdiction. The decision was challenged in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while relying on its earlier decision in Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others reported as (2009) 2 SCC 244, observed that the provisions of territorial jurisdiction have to be interpreted consistently with the object of facilitating remedy for the victim of an accident. In such matters, a hyper-technical approach should not be taken and there exists no bar to a claim petition filed at a place where the insurance company has its place of business. The decision of the High Court was set aside and award of the Tribunal was restored, while also noting that no prejudice had been caused to any party.
10. Relevant excerpt from the decision in Malati Sardar (Supra) is reproduced hereunder:-
11. Subsequently, the view taken in Malati Sardar (Supra) has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Kusum Devi and Anr. v. National Insurance Company Limited and Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 29326/2015, as well as by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Savitri and Others v. Keshav Singh and Others reported as 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1044, which cases arose out of accident claims filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
12. At this stage, reference may be made to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under:- “166. Application for compensation.—(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made— (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: [(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: …”
13. A plain reading of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would show that the same is akin to Section 21 of the EC Act. Both provisions stipulate places where claim petitions seeking compensation may be instituted under the respective Acts. The provisions are beneficial in nature and intended for the welfare of victims/their legal heirs. As such, even though the decisions referred to hereinabove were rendered in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act, the legal position set out therein applies squarely to the present case of EC Act.
14. Relying on the decision in Malati Sardar (Supra), objections to territorial jurisdiction have accordingly been thwarted by Single Benches of the Karnataka High Court, the Rajasthan High Court and the Allahabad High Court in The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Bellary v. Smt. Mahabunni and Ors., MFA No. 20690/2011, United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Narendra Kaur & Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 993/2008 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Seema Devi and Ors., FAO 459/2020 respectively. It is noted that in Seema Devi (Supra), the objections to territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Gorakhpur were rejected as the insurance company had a regional office at the said place. Likewise, in Smt. Narendra Kaur (Supra), a case arising out of claimants’ application for compensation under the EC Act, the insurance company had raised an issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction, which was decided by the Commissioner in favour of the claimants. In proceedings before the High Court, the learned Judge concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner and dismissed the appeal.
15. In fact, the issue of jurisdiction under EC Act had also arisen before Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Waheed Khan & Anr., reported as I (1998) ACC 456 (DB). In the captioned case, the appellant-insurance company disputed territorial jurisdiction by urging that the claim petitions ought to have been filed in Maharashtra as the accident took place there and the Commissioner in Hyderabad did not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the claims. After considering rival submissions of the parties and observing that the EC Act is a socio-beneficiary legislation designed to reach out monetary compensation as a part of redeeming distress of the workmen or their dependents, the Court had held that entertainment of a claim application by a Commissioner in whose jurisdiction the accident did not occur may at best constitute an irregularity or illegality, but it does not take away the intrinsic competence to deal with the matter.
16. In the present case, not only the insurance company has its office in Delhi but even the claimants in their application have mentioned that they were residing at House No. G-32, 1A, Janta Enclave, Near Kasiya Masjid, Delhi-110086. In the considered opinion of this Court, learned Commissioner erred in dismissing the claim applications on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding the same on merits, and for which purpose it would be listed before the concerned Tribunal, at the first instance on 29.05.2023.
18. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.
JUDGE APRIL 17, 2023