D.A.DESAI - (1.) Laws proverbial delay can be a cause of untold misery agony and torture to a poor litigant is best illustrated by the facts of this case.
(2.) Appellant is the original applicant before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation Ahmedabad. She is the widow of one Shaikhamu Shaikhmahomed an unfortunate mill hand who happened to be engaged and employed by the respondent company. While serving with the respondent he was on duty on 3rd August 1960 in the second shift which commenced around 3.30 P.M. Shaikhamu left his house at 3-00 P.M. to report for duty at the textile mills of the respondent company. He entered the weaving department at the time appointed for starting of the second shift. He worked upto 5-30 P.M. when he was found lying in a passage near the weaving loom on which he was working. His colleague at the nearby loom one Ahmadbhai Avadhbhai Exh. 10 saw deceased Shaikhamu lying and he was taken to the dining shed where on examination he was found to be dead. Dead-body was taken to the Civil Hospital. One Dr. L. H. Acharya Ex. 12 carried out post mortem examination copy of the post-mortem notes is Ex. 12. He preserved viscera and sent it to the Chemical Analyser. In the meantime on receipt of the histo-pathology report he gave his opinion as to the cause of death as heart failure due to acute coronary insufficiency. Subsequently he changed his opinion on receipt of the report of the Chemical Analyser and stated that death was due to arsonic poison. Applicant is the widow of the deceased. She filed application for recovering compensation from the employer respondent. To say the least the matter was scandalously conducted in that application was made on 3rd December 1960 and the Written Statement filed by the respondent was recorded on 27th January 1961 The matter was adjourned to as many as on 81 occasions commen- cing from 27th January 1961 and ending with 19th August 1967. An appli- cation made by the dependent widow for a paltry compensation of Rs. 3 500 before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation was kept pen- ding for six years and was adjourned on as many as 81 occasions. This is sufficient to bring the judicial process into disrepute. To add to the agony I may also note that evidence was recorded in September 1962 and there- after matter was adjourned for five years before final order could be pro- nounced. To say the least this disc oses not only sorry but scandalous state of affairs.
(3.) The applicant claimed compensation on the ground that deceased Shaikhamu her husband died on account of an in jury suffered in an acci- dent arising out of and in course of his employment and therefore the employer is liable to pay the compensation.;