JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), has been filed by the appellant, challenging the order dated 31.1.1996, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation,Kota (hereinafter to be referred to as the Authority) by which claimant respondent No. 1 - Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar has been allowed the compensation of Rs. 84,716/- to be paid by the Insurance Company. The claimant respondent No. 1 has also been allowed Rs. 30,300/- towards the interest and penalty to be paid by the appellant herein and her three sons. 2. After filing of the appeal, the office raised 9 objections including the objection in regard to the limitation and non-filing of receipt of depositing the amount awarded by the Authority. The appeal being time barred by 804 days, the appellant had also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the same. this Court, vide order dated 19.7.1999, over-ruled the defects and the appeal was ordered to be listed for admission. Again on 22.7.1999, notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted and disposed of. On 4.1.2000, the Court passed the following order-- There is an office objection that the appeal is barred by limitation of 804 days. No order, as yet, has been passed on the application for condonation of delay. Unless order is passed on the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is not maintainable. However, it appears that orders for issuance of notice on admission have been passed and the Court has also granted stay. As the proceedings are pending consideration from July, 1999, it would be appropriate to place the matter on hearing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, without passing any order on stay. The matter be listed on 13.1.2000 for the said purpose. 3. Thereafter, on 19.12.2001, the arguments were heard and order reserved. 4. The main submission of Mr. G.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant, has been that the claim petition before the Authority was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the husband of the appellant, however, the Authority, without bringing the legal heirs on record and issuing them notice and further giving them an opportunity of hearing, had decided the claim petition of the respondent No. 1-claimant against the appellant. The learned Counsel has further submitted that it was only during the execution proceedings that the appellant came to know about the claim filed by the respondent No. 1-claimant before the Authority and, immediately thereafter, the present appeal has been filed along with the application for condonation of delay. 5. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that since the Authority has passed the impugned order without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside and, for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is also liable to be condoned. 6. After having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also the original file and record of the Authority, as summoned by this Court. 7. From the original record of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kota-the Authority in the present case-it transpires that an application under Section 22 of the Act was filed by the claimant-respondent No. 1 before the Authority on 8.4.1993. It has been submitted in the application that Shri Bhim Singh, the husband of the claimant-respondent No. 1, was employed as driver of the truck owned by Shri Charanjeet Singh, the husband of the present appellant. The above Bhim Sing died in an accident of the truck on 23.2.1993, during the course of employment as such, the claimant-applicant was entitled for compensation under the Act. 8. The Authority, while granting exemption from filing the Court-fee to the claimant-applicant, issued notice to the respondents on 1.6.1993. The notices issued by the Authority on 1.7.1993, for 3.8.1993, were received by original respondent-Charanjeet Singh, the owner of the truck and the employer of late Shri Bhim Singh, as per the acknowledgment receipt available on record. Thereafter, since notices were duly served, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against the above respondent by the authority on 7.9.1993. 9. Subsequently, it seems that Shri Charanjeet Singh, the husband of the present appellant, died on 20.9.1993. The claimant-respondent No. 1 filed an application for bringing on record the legal heirs of Shri Charanjeet Singh on 21.12.1993 before the Authority. In the said application, since name of the appellant was not known to the claimant, the appellant was mentioned as Mrs. Subsequently, it seems that Shri Charanjeet Singh, the husband of the present appellant, died on 20.9.1993. The claimant-respondent No. 1 filed an application for bringing on record the legal heirs of Shri Charanjeet Singh on 21.12.1993 before the Authority. In the said application, since name of the appellant was not known to the claimant, the appellant was mentioned as Mrs. Charanjeet Singh, resident of E-31, Anandpuri, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur to be impleaded as party respondent. Notices were issued to the appellant as Mrs. Charanjeet Singh wife of Charanjeet Singh, Ranjeet Singh son of Charanjeet Singh and Narani daughter of Charanjeet Singh on 24.2.1994, for 16.3.1994. All the three notices were received by one Manjeet Kaur on the same address i.e. E-13, Anandpuri, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur as per the acknowledgment receipts available on record. 10. When the matter was posted before the Authority on 16.3.1994, the claimant-applicant was again allowed to file a fresh application for bringing on record legal heirs of deceased Charanjeet Singh, giving their names since the present appellant had only been mentioned as Mrs. Charanjeet Singh. The claimant-respondent No. 1 again filed an application on 29.4.1994 giving name of the present appellant as wife of late Shri Charanjeet Singh on the same address i.e. E-13, Anandpuri, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. The application was allowed and notices were issued to the present appellant on 25.8.1994 for 28.9.1994, on the address E-13, Anandpuri, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. Notices for same date were also issued to Inderpal Singh son of Charanjeet on the same address. Both the notices were received by the present appellant herself as is evident from the signatures of Pritam Kaur on both the acknowledgment receipts as available on record. 11. Since, notices had been duly served, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against the appellant also on 28.9.1994. Thereafter, taking evidence of claimant-respondent No. 1, the impugned order was passed by the Authority on 31.1.1996, allowing the claim application. 12. A bare perusal of the facts and dates narrated above, which have been taken from the original record of the Authority, in my opinion, the appellant has not come up with clean hands before this Court. She has completely failed to explain the delay of 804 days in filing the present appeal. 13. From the record, it reveals that the first notice had been received by late Shri Charanjeet Singh, the husband of the appellant. She has completely failed to explain the delay of 804 days in filing the present appeal. 13. From the record, it reveals that the first notice had been received by late Shri Charanjeet Singh, the husband of the appellant. Subsequently, the notices were received twice on behalf of the legal heirs; once by one Manjeet Kaur and second time by the appellant herself as per the acknowledgment receipts available on record. In all the notices, the postal address was the same i.e. E-13, Anandpuri, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, the postal address which has not been disputed by the appellant so far. Since the postal acknowledgment receipts had duly been received back by the Authority; the number of case and the date fixed before the Authority have also been mentioned on the receipts, a legal presumption, and valid one, can safely be drawn that all the notices sent by the Authority to the legal heirs of late Shri Charanjeet Singh, including the present appellant, were served on them. The appellant has very conveniently, instead of putting her signatures on the appeal, affidavit and the power in favour of the learned Counsel, has put her thump impressions on the same and nowhere in the appeal or in any of the affidavit has mentioned that she is an illiterate person and cannot read and write or even put her signatures. Thus, the appellant has not only concealed the material facts but also tried to misrepresent and mislead this Court. 14. After having carefully considered the entire facts of the present case, not only the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay but also the appeal itself is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the appeal are dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be recovered from the appellant along with the amount awarded by the Authority. 16. The record of the Authority i.e. the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kota be sent back immediately for further execution and recovery of the amount as per the impugned, order dated 31.1.1996. Copy of this order be also sent to the claimant-respondent No. 1 as also the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kota for information and further necessary action.Appeal dismissed with Cost. *******