Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 215 (HP)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAM PAYAREE

2001-08-29

A.K.GOEL, KAMLESH SHARMA

body2001
JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J. (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning inordinate delay of 166 days in filing the appeal against the award dated 26. 10.1999 passed by workmens Compensation Commissioner (S.D.M.), Theog, District Shimla, whereby liability has been fixed on the applicant-Insurance company to pay an amount of Rs. 72,100/- as compensation and interest to respondent No. 1-claimant. 2. Separate reply-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 and respondent No. 2 to which rejoinders have also been filed. 3. We have learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. In the application as well as in the rejoinders the sufficient cause shown in filing the appeal late is that the application-Insurance Company came to know of the award dated 26.10.1999 on 2.3.2000 when the representative of the respondent No. 1-claimant visited its Divisional office and supplied photocopy of the impugned award. The applicant-insurance had engaged one Mr. Bhagwan Chand, Advocate to contest the clain petition on its behalf who had been informing it that the case was still pending as and when progress of the case was inquired from him. Certified copy of the order was obtained through Mr. Bhagwan Chand, Advocate on 27.3.2000 and thereafter the appeal was filed on 11.4.2000 after getting approval from the competent authority and undergoing other formalities. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr. Jagdish Narang, Assistant Divisional Manager of the applicant- insurance Company and also of Mr. Bhagwan Chand Advocate. 5. Mr. Bhagwan Chand, Advocate in his affidavit has admitted that as it was not possible for him to attend each hearing at Theog, he had further engaged one Mr. Rajinder Singh Kashyap, Advocate, Theog for defending the claim petition on behalf of the applicant-Insurance Company. According to him, the written statement/reply to the claim petition handed over by the applicant-Insurance Company was given to said Mr. Rajinder Singh Kashyap, Advocate, but it appears that the same was not filed. It is also admitted that the officers of the applicant-Insurance Company had been regularly inquiring about the case from him and on the basis of the information available with him he had been telling them that the case in still pending; as such, the applicant-Insurance Company had no knowledge that the claim petition stood decided on 26-10-1999. According to Mr. It is also admitted that the officers of the applicant-Insurance Company had been regularly inquiring about the case from him and on the basis of the information available with him he had been telling them that the case in still pending; as such, the applicant-Insurance Company had no knowledge that the claim petition stood decided on 26-10-1999. According to Mr. Bhagwan Chand, Advocate, he was contacted by Mr. Jagdish Narang, Assistant Divisional manager of the applicant-Insurance Company and 3sked about the progress of the case and after inquiring from Mr. Rajinder Singh Kashyap, Advocate, he had informed that the claim petition stood decided on 26.10.1999 and thereafter he had obtained certified copy of the award and supplied it to the applicant-Insurance Company on 27.3.2000. 6. In view of these facts and circumstances on record, we have no hesitation to hold that inordinate delay, in filing the appeal against the impugned award was caused due to the negligence of Mr. Bhagwan Chand, Advocate, which the applicant-Insurance Company should not suffer. The applicant-Insurance Company had done whatever was within its power by engaging a counsel to contest the claim petition on its behalf who had further handed over the brief to another counsel and thereafter did not care to ensure whether the case of the applicant-fnsurance company was being defended properly or not, as admittedly even the written statement/reply handed over to Mr. Bhagwan Chand, Advocate, was not filed. It is also admitted by Mr. Bhagwan Chand, Advocate, that the inquires were being made regularly about the progress of the case from him and he had been informing that the claim petition was still pending and it was for the first time on 213.2000 when he informed Mr. Jagdish Narang, Assistant Divisional manager of the applicant-Insurance Company that the claim petition stood decided on 26-10-1999. Therefore, we are of the view that if the Counsel failed to inform the applicant-Insurance company about the decision of the case it should not be deprived of its right to assail the award by filing the appeal whereby pubic justice will suffer, as the applicant-Insurance Company is a Public Sector Undertaking being subsidiary to the General Insurance Corporation of India Limited and its interest is the interest of the general public. For taking this view we are support by law laid down by Supreme Court in Lajpat Rai & Others V. State of Punjab & Others, AIR 1981 SC 1401. 7. For the negligence of the lawyer we would not penalize the applicant-insurance Company by refusing to condone the delay. In the result, we allow this application and condone the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- by the applicant-Insurance Company within a period of two weeks. However, the Insurance Company is at liberty to realize this amount from Mr. Bhagwan Chand, Advocate. For putting costs we are guided by the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in State of UP. V. Sunder Singh and Other, JT 1999 (10) SC 507, wherein on the admitted lapse committed by the Additional Government Advocate in applying for certified copy of the judgment late a cost of Rs. 5,000/- was put on him. The learned judges have also observed that, "law Officers engaged by the State Government cannot adopt such a careless attitude in matters of public importance. It would be a sad day for the law enforcement machinery if such law officers are permitted to go scot-free without any liability after creating a situation like this". 8. The appeal be registered and listed for admission on receipt of records which may be sent for immediately.