Delhi High Court
Dharmender Singh vs Dildar Singh & Ors. on 18 February, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 53/2014
% 18th February, 2014
DHARMENDER SINGH ......Appellant
Through: Ms. Pratima M. Chauhan, Adv.
VERSUS
DILDAR SINGH & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No.3317/2014 (delay) & CM No.3318/2014 (delay in refiling)
1. For the reasons stated in the applications, delay in filing and refiling is
condoned. CMs stand disposed of.
CM No.3316/2014 (Exemption)
2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
FAO 53/2014
3. By this first appeal which is stated to be filed under Section 30 of the
Employees' Compensation Act,1923 (in short 'the Act') challenge is laid to
FAO 53/2014 Page 1 of 3
the impugned order dated 19.2.2013 which has dismissed an application for
enhancement of compensation by taking the disability as 100%, although,
there was an earlier judgment passed in the main proceedings for
compensation filed under Section 22 of the Act. The earlier judgment is
dated 11.6.2008.
4. First of all I am doubtful whether at all an appeal will lie under
Section 30 of the Act inasmuch as an appeal under Section 30 of the Act lies
against an order determining compensation or determining an amount of
penalty or interest which is payable under Section 4A of the Act. Against a
misconceived application which did not lie in the first place, and which is
dismissed, I do not think that an appeal lies under Section 30 of the Act. Be
that as it may, I have considered the issue also on merits.
5. Admittedly, the first compensation claim was adjudicated in favour of
appellant-applicant by the judgment of the Commissioner dated 11.6.2008.
Disability was ascertained at a particular percentage of the employee.
Compensation was accordingly awarded and paid. The judgment dated
11.6.2008 has become final. There is no provision in the Employees'
Compensation Act for filing a second or successive application(s) seeking
enhancement of compensation on the ground that earlier the disability has
been wrongly determined at a lesser percentage. If the applicant-appellant
FAO 53/2014 Page 2 of 3
was dissatisfied with the percentage of disability which was fixed in the
judgment dated 11.6.2008, the remedy was to challenge that earlier
judgment dated 11.6.2008, but it was not challenged, and therefore, the
matter rested there. The present application therefore did not lie by which
enhanced compensation was sought on the ground of higher disability.
6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is
therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
FEBRUARY 18, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
