1 ( 2025:HHC:26556 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.548 of 2024 Date of Decision : 06.08.2025 New India Assurance Company Limited …… Petitioner Versus Smt. Parveen Sood and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Bunesh Pal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against impugned order dated 31.07.2024, whereby an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 360- days in filing the petition under Section 21 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 by present respondent No.1, has been allowed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the documents appended along-with present petition. Along-with the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:26556 ) application seeking condonation of delay, a copy of FIR No.12/2021 has been filed. 3. From perusal of the same, it is evident that the son of respondent No.1 had died on 23.01.2021 allegedly during the course of employment with present respondent No.2. Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, prescribes two years period from the date of death of the workman for filing a claim petition by his dependents under the Act. In terms of the proviso of Section 10(i), Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim qua compensation not preferred in due time as prescribed if he satisfies that the failure to file was due to sufficient cause. 4. The reasons cited for seeking condonation of delay in preferring the petition under the Employees Compensation Act were two fold. At the very outset, it was urged that the delay occurred on account of the fact that respondent No.2 kept assuring present respondent No.1 that she would give her compensation. Other than the aforesaid, the second reason mentioned was qua the petition in this respect being filed by respondent No.1 before the District Consumer Redressal Commission, Shimla. The petition filed before the District Consumer Redressal Commission, Shimla was withdrawn on 11.12.2021 with liberty reserved by respondent No.1 to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action before the competent Court of jurisdiction. 5. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the son of respondent No.1 had died on 23.01.2021. The claim petition for compensation could, therefore on behalf of the dependents, have been filed before 23.01.2023. Any petition filed thereafter before the competent Court would require to explain the delay 3 ( 2025:HHC:26556 ) in filing such petition. In the case at hand, rather than filing a petition before the competent Court, a complaint was preferred by respondent No.1 before the District Consumer Redressal Commission, Shimla. The same was withdrawn on 11.12.2021. After withdrawal of the said complaint, wherein liberty was reserved to file afresh on the same cause of action before the competent Court, a petition seeking compensation alongwith the application for condonation of delay was filed before the competent authority on 05.01.2024. 6. The Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is a welfare legislation. While dealing with a petition filed under the Act, the underlying object of the Act has to be kept in mind. In cases normally filed under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the claimants are either injured or disabled workmen or dependents of deceased workmen. While dealing with such like matters, justice oriented rather than a hyper-technical approach needs to be taken. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, I see no reason to differ with the view taken by the Commissioner Employees Compensation, Court No.2, Shimla dated 31.07.2024. However, it is made clear that if ultimately the petition of present respondent No.1 seeking compensation on account of death of a son is allowed, then for the period w.e.f. 23.01.2023 till 05.01.2024, i.e., the period of limitation within which claim petition should have been filed and the date wherein the claim petition along with an application for condonation of delay was filed, for the said period no interest 4 ( 2025:HHC:26556 ) would be payable by the present petitioner (respondent No.2 before the Employees Compensation Commissioner), Court No.2, Shimla. 8. The view for non-grant of interest for the aforesaid period is taken on account of the fact that the present respondent No.1, i.e. the claimant before the Court below has slept over the matter during the said period and no explanation whatsoever has been given for the delay. In this regard, reference can be gainfully made to judgment reported in Oriental Insurance Company vs. Smt. Geeta and others, 2005 (3) Shimla Law Cases. 9. In view of the above, present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( Bipin Chander Negi) August 6, 2025 (KS) Judge