Delhi High Court
Nitin Kumar vs Chotan Dass on 27 October, 2022
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004594
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO 35/2019, CM APPL. 4129/2019 and CM APPL. 4130/2019
Date of Decision: 27.10.2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
NITIN KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: None
versus
CHOTAN DASS ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
1. Present none for the appellant.
2. It is noted that the appellant remained unrepresented even on the last
date of hearing and the appeal is still pending at the stage of issuance of
notice.
3. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act'),
the appellant/employer (respondent before the learned Commissioner) has
assailed order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner,
Employees' Compensation, North-East District, Delhi in Case No. CEC-
1/NE/66/2017 titled as Sh. Chotan Dass v. Sh. Nitin Kumar. Vide the
impugned order, the appellant was directed to deposit as injury
compensation Rs.1,79,424/- alongwith simple interest @ 12% p.a. from the
date of accident till realization, as well as penalty amount @ 50% of injury
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:02.11.2022
17:48:20
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004594
compensation amount (Rs.2,69,139/-).
4. I have gone through the entire material placed on record.
5. Brief facts, as emerge from the record, are that the
respondent/claimant had filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Act
read with Rule 20 of the Rules made thereunder in November, 2017,
wherein it was stated that he was employed as a Power Pressman with the
appellant since 12.05.2010. As per the averments, the claimant had been
operating power press machines and his last drawn wages were Rs.7,500/-
per month. On 11.09.2017, at about 8:00 p.m. when the claimant was
operating the power press machine, the break of the machine hit double. He
applied break, but the machine did not stop and his right hand got crushed
under the dye. The incident resulted in grievous injuries to the claimant and
statedly occurred during the course of his employment with the appellant on
account of malfunctioning of the machine.
It was further averred that as a result of the accident, the claimant had
lost consciousness. When he regained consciousness, he found himself at St.
Stephen's Hospital, Delhi, where the appellant and his brothers were also
present. The claimant's fingers were operated on and he suffered amputation
of three fingers of his right hand. An FIR bearing No.330/2017 came to be
registered at his complaint against the appellant under Sections 287/337 IPC
at P.S. Mansarovar Park.
6. After considering the facts of the case and material placed on record,
including the Permanent Disability Certificate dated 15.11.2017 issued by
the Office of Medical Director, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi, wherein
the claimant's permanent locomotor impairment was assessed @ 20% in
relation to his right upper limb, the learned Commissioner passed the
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:02.11.2022
17:48:20
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004594
impugned order. While reaching the conclusion that the claimant sustained
the injury during and out of course of employment, learned Commissioner
also took into account the FIR bearing No. 330/2017 registered against the
appellant.
7. A perusal of the record would show that in the written statement filed
before the learned Commissioner, the appellant denied the factum of
claimant's employment with him. However, on 16.10.2017, the same was
admitted by the appellant in a statement given to the Labour Inspector
(Ex.RW-1/C-1), where it was stated 'karamchari do mahino se kabhi kabar
part time kaam karta tha. Unke anusar karamchari ka koi bakaya vetan nahi
hai ...'. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner also noted that the
proceedings before the Labour Inspector were signed by the appellant.
Though the appellant denied factum of appearance before the Labour
Inspector, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that such denial
was not borne out from the record.
8. Considering the aforesaid, I find no ground to interfere with the
impugned order. The appeal is dismissed in default for non-prosecution as
well as on merits. Let the compensation amount deposited before the learned
Commissioner, alongwith interest accrued thereupon, be released to the
claimant forthwith, if not already done.
9. Pending applications are disposed of as infructuous.
10. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned Commissioner
for information.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 27, 2022/v
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:02.11.2022
17:48:20
