004-NLR-NLR-V-59-E.-AMERASINGHE-Appellant-and-THE-MANAGER-CEYLON-WHARFAGE-CO.-LTD.-Responden.pdf
16
Amcrasinghe v. The Manager, Ceylon Wharfage Oo., Ltd.
1957Present; Sinnetamby, J.
• E. AMERASIXCHE, Appellant, and THE MANAGER,CEYLOX WHARFAGE CO., LTD., Respondent.S. C. 5—Workmen’s Compensation C 30(TS19/o2
Workman—Accident—Claim for compensation—Delay in making it—Sufficientcause—Workmen's Compensation Ordinance {Cap. 117), s. 16 (1) and {2).
Where a workman has been induced on the advice of his employer to believethat ho had no ground for making a claim for condensation, the workman’sdelay in making his claim would be excused.
Tho appellant was a tally clerk employed by the respondent company.In tho course of his duty on October 10, 195:2, ho was stung by n bee. Ifobecame unconscious and had to bo admitted to hospital. On tho recommenda-tion of the company’s doctor, however, ho was given his normal work till howas discontinued in February, 1956. Tho doctor’s ndvico showed that tho
SIXXETAJfBV, J.—Atnerasinghc v. The ^Manager, Ceylon Wharfage17
Co., Ltd.,
injurious efTect of tJio ncciilenfc was latent and not patent at the time. So farback as April and May, llljo, tlio appellant was informed that liis serviceswould bo diseojitimicd unless his attendance improved.
Iic’rl, that there was sufficient cause within tho meaning of section 1G (2) of(he Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance for tho failuro of the appellant toprefer liis claim within the period of six months prescribed by section 1G (1).
Held further, that onco tho failuro to mako the claim within the statutory-period of si.v months was excused, it was not material to consider any furtherdelay after that period.
-A.PPEAL. mulct: tho Workmen's Compensation Ordinance.
C. G. Wceramanhy, with .V. R. M. Daluu atte, for the applicant-appellant.
Ltjn 1 Veer use):era, for the respondent.
V. G. B. Poem, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General, on notice.
Cur. ado. vult.
January 25, 1957. Siyxetamby, J.—
The appellant was a tally clerk employed by the respondent company.In the course of his duties on 10/10/1952 lio was stung by a bee. liebecame unconscious and had to be admitted to hospital. On therecommendation of the company’s doctor lie was given his normal workfrom January, 1953, till he was discontinued in February, 195G. Theappellant’s ease is that after lie resumed work lie was frequently absenton account of illness caused by the accident and that he submittedmedical certificates whenever lie was so absent. There is nothing inthe proceedings to show that this statement is wrong. It would <Tppearthat so far back as April and Abvy, 1955, the appellant was informedthat liis services woidd be discontinued unless his attendance improved.
Upon these facts it is reasonable to assume that the company’s doctorthought the appellant had suffered no such disablement as would haverendered him unfit for work and the company liable to pay compensationand recommended liis re-employment; that the appellant acting onthis representation though he gave notice of (he accident did not givenotice of his claim for compensation within the specified period of sixmonths ; that subsequently his attendance was unsatisfactory and horeceived notice terminating liis services in April, 1955,for the first time ;that liis bad attendance was due to the effect of the accident and thatthe full effects of the accident upon the appellant were latent and notdiscernible, as would appear from the company’s doctor’s recommenda-tion, until sometime later.
At tlie hearing before tho Commissioner of Workmen’s Comjiensationthe company tcok the> legal defence that the claim was barred as it hadnot been preferred within the period of six months prescribed by section1G(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 117). TheCommissioner upheld the objections and considered that no sufficientcause had been established within the meaning of section 1G (2) for thedelay in making the claim to enable him to entertain it. The appealis against that decision.
18
"William Singho v. Edwin Singho
Tho provisions of our Ordinance in regard to reasonable cause areexpressed in somewhat different words to those employed in the English-Act, but for all practical purposes they would appear to be the same.In England it has been held that when the workman has been inducedon the advice of the employer to believe that he had no ground formaking a claim the del a}' would be excused—vide Hals. Vol. 34 para 1205(Hailsham Ed.) In the present case the company’s doctor’s advice,which presumably was correct at the time, that the appellant may bere-employed certainly would have induced a reasonable man to assumethat the accident had no ill-effects of a kind that would give rise to aclaim. In any event the advice shows that the injurious effect of theaccident was latent and not patent at the time—vide Shotts Iron Co.v. Fordyce1. In the circumstances of this case I am of the view that theappellant has shown sufficient cause for the delay in making his claim.
It is true that the appellant became aware of the fact that, he wasentitled to claim more than six months before he actually made theclaim but this is no bar. Once the failure to make the claim within thestatutory six months is excused it is not- material to consider anyfurther delay after that period. Lingley v. Thomas Frith & Sons 2.
I would accordingly set aside the order of the Commissioner andremit the case back to him for assessment of compensation. Theappellant would be entitled to the costs of the appeal.
Order set aside-
«o-