Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) - This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act') has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company aggrieved against the judgment dated 21/5/2001 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Chittorgarh ('the Commissioner') whereby, the application for compensation filed by the respondents no. 1 to 5 has been accepted and award of Rs. 1,03,990/- has been passed by the Commissioner.
(2.) An application under Section 10 of the Act was filed on 9/4/1999 by the respondents no. 1 to 5 inter alia with the averments that on 11/12/1995 one HMT Tractor No. RJ-09-R-1947 met with an accident; at the time of accident the Tractor was being driven by Bheru Singh son of Vijay Singh, which resulted in death of said Bheru Singh on the spot. The deceased was engaged as driver on the Tractor and at the time of accident he was in the employment of non-claimants and the accident occurred during the course of employment. It was claimed that the claimants are entitled to compensation from the owners and the Insurance Company. It was indicated that the deceased was being paid Rs. 2000/- as monthly wages and he was aged 30 years at the time of accident. It was also indicated that the claim was preferred before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nimbaheda, the said Tribunal on 21/4/1997, on account of lack of jurisdiction, returned back the claim and now the application is being filed after two years of the accident along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ('the Limitation Act'). With the above averments, it was claimed that compensation in terms of the Act be awarded. Along with the application for compensation, another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed inter alia indicating that the claim filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was ordered to be returned on 21/4/1997, the applicant is illiterate lady, very poor and 'pardanasheen' and on account of sudden death of her husband was disturbed and as the responsibility to look after the children and mother-in-law fell on her, besides various social and economic disturbances, she was disappointed on account of return of claim petition by the Tribunal, various relatives tried to make her understand regarding making the application and after taking advice from the counsel, the same was being filed on 9/4/1999. It was contended that the time spent in filing the proceedings before the wrong court and after return of the same, the delay deserves to be condoned. It was prayed that the delay occurred not on account of any negligence but on account of her illiteracy, unawareness and on account of responsibility which fell on her on account of sudden death of her husband. It was prayed that delay be condoned.
(3.) A reply to the application for compensation was filed by the employers-non-claimants No. 1 to 3 inter alia indicating that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and it is the responsibility of the Insurance Company to make payment of the amount of compensation. Though the factum of employment was not denied, it was claimed that the deceased was being paid Rs. 1000/- per month.;