Kamal Kishore Mahajan Vs. Mamta & Ors. CMP(M) No.1391 of 2024 13.05.2025 Present: Ms. Veena Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Surinder K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5. Respondent No.6 proceeded ex parte vide order dated 25.11.2024. CMP(M) No.1391 of 2024 This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 117 days in filing the appeal, with the submission that applicant/appellant, who is a resident of far-flung area and suffering from bad health conditions, could not file appeal within the limitation period. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that before preferring the appeal, as advised by the counsel and also provided under the provisions of law, it was necessary for the applicant to deposit amount of compensation imposed upon him by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation and to arrange the said amount, applicant has to sell out his flat at Mohali in the month of April, 2024 and thereafter applicant/appellant deposited Rs.2,75,000/- with the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation on 14.06.2024. Thereafter, the applicant approached the counsel for filing present appeal and in these circumstances, appeal was prepared and filed, firstly on 12.07.2024 which was returned for removing objection and after removing objection, it was re-filed on 05.08.2024. To substantiate the plea, learned counsel has also referred to the documents placed on record with respect to the sale of the flat at Mohali by the applicant/appellant as well as receipt of deposit of Rs.2,75,000/-. Respondent No.6/Insurance Company, despite service has not chosen to be represented and has been proceeded ex parte. Whereas respondents No.1 to 5 though being represented by Mr. Surinder K. Sharma, Advocate have not preferred to file reply since December, 2024, despite availing numerous opportunities. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and material placed on record, I am convinced that there was sufficient cause which prevented the applicant/appellant from filing the appeal within the limitation period and accordingly delay in filing appeal is condoned. Application is allowed and disposed of. FAO No._______of 2025 (FAOST No.40625/2023) Be registered. Notice to respondents No.1 to 5 is not required to be issued as they are duly represented through counsel. Fresh notice to respondent No.6/Insurance Company, returned on next date, be issued on taking steps within one week. Records be requisitioned. List on 14.07.2025. CMP No.______ of 2025 (CMPST No.30069/2024) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as also evident from the copy of challan placed on record that applicant/appellant has deposited Rs.2,75,000/- with the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation on 11.06.2024. It is further submitted that as per the impugned award, liability of the appellant-applicant is limited only to Rs.2,75,000/- and the same stands deposited by the applicant/appellant before the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation. Subject to verification of the claim of the applicant/appellant and also deposit of entire amount of compensation as per liability fixed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation to pay the said amount by the applicant/appellant, execution and operation of impugned award dated 17.06.2023 passed in WC Petition Filing No.126 of 2015 CIS Reg. No.02 of 2015 titled as “Mamta & Ors. Vs. K.K. Mahajan and Anr.” shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Alteration/modification/vacation on motion. The application stands disposed of. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge May 13, 2025 (Rupsi)