N.C Jain, J. — This appeal has been directed against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act dated 27th July, 1991 dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay has been dismissed primarily on two grounds. In the first instance it has been found that the application for condonation of delay was not filed in Jalandhar Court with the original application and secondly the Commissioner seems to think that since no notice was issued within the meaning and ambit of Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, no case for condoning the delay has been made out as the application has not been filed within two years of the accident.
2. I have perused the order and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my considered view the impugned order is unsustainable, both in law and in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the first instance, the facts be noticed. The application under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act was filed before the Commissioner, Jalandhar on 20th August, 1986. The petitioner has stated in his petition that Karnail Singh had died on 31st January, 1984. In other words, the application was barred by about seven months. Later on, when it was found that Court at Jalandhar had no jurisdiction, it was taken back and was presented to the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act at Hoshiarpur on 16th August, 1986. An application dated 20th August, 1986 for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was placed on record with an affidavit of Bawa Singh. No doubt, the application for condonation of delay was filed on 6th August, 1991 but it was stated in so many words that the application was drafted for presentation with the main petition before Jalandhar Court, but inadvertently it remained in the brief of the counsel. In view thereof, ???- filing of application under Section 5 of the ???tation Act, alongwith the application, is not ???al. The applicant has stated on oath in so many ???at he kept on going to the Insurance Company and the officers had been telling him that the claim of the petitioner would be settled. The counsel for the respondent could not direct any cross-examination against the petitioner to the effect that he was telling a lie and that he did not go to the Insurance Company. This statement of the petitioner cannot be disbelieved. Nothing has come on record of the case that even the employer had ever informed the Insurance Company about the death of the petitioner's ???n. The delay can always be condoned by the Commissioner as has been held in Mangal Chand v. Forest Department, 1985 ACJ 8; N. Pochiah & Co. v. Mulle Nagabhushanam, AIR 1966 AP 99; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. v. Anand Kanwar, 1988 ACJ 1051 and Sivam v. Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Trichur, 1987 ACJ 242.
3. Leaving aside the case law, cited by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to adopt a liberal attitude as regards condonation of delay is concerned. It has been held in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, 1987 RLR 169 that a litigant does not stand to benefit by filing a time barred matter. In this case, the petitioner who is stated to be of 85 years old and whose only son has died, would not have surely been benefited in delaying the institution of the claim application as he would need the money very badly.
4. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Commissioner is hereby set aside. The Commissioner is directed to decide the claim application as expeditiously as he can. The petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the Commissioner on 8th January, 1992. The Commissioner is directed to issue notices to the respondents as they have chosen not to appear in this Court despite service.
Appeal allowed.