[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Ombeer & Anr on 16 December, 2025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 10.12.2025
Judgment pronounced on:16.12.2025
+ FAO 531/2016
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
with Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Advocate
versus
OMBEER & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. R.K. Nain Chandan Prajapati
Advocate with Ms. Arti Sharma,
Advocate for Respondent No.1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's
Compensation Act, 1923 (the EC Act) has been filed by
respondent no. 2/ Insurance Company in WC/126/NW/12/2751 on
the file of the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation,
Employment Exchange Building, Pusha Complex, New Delhi,
aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2016 by which the claim for
compensation filed by the claimant was allowed.
2. In this appeal, the parties herein unless otherwise specified
will be referred to as described in the claim petition.
3. In the application for compensation filed under Section 22
of the EC Act, it is alleged thus:- The applicant/claimant Ombeer
was employed as a cleaner in vehicle bearing No. DL-1L-E-3887
owned by respondent no. 1. On 08.07.2003, he sustained injuries
in an accident which occurred during the course of his
employment. The applicant/claimant while working as cleaner in
the aforesaid vehicle on 08.07.2003 at about 12:00 noon sustained
injuries. On the said day, while he was on the seat of the vehicle
bearing No. DL-1L-E-3887 coming from Vijaypura, District
Aligarh, U.P. towards Delhi loaded with goods and when the
vehicle reached near Bulandsahar, a crane coming from the
opposite side being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided
with his vehicle on the side where the seat of the cleaner is
situated. The applicant/claimant was thrown on to the road
whereby he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately taken
to Dinesh Fracture Clinic and Maternity Centre, Bulandsahar with
the help of some persons. He was admitted in the hospital and
remained there as an in-patient for about 8 days and after
discharge, he returned to his village. The applicant/claimant
incurred an expenditure of ₹ 70,000/- to 75,000/- for his treatment.
After the accident, the applicant/claimant is not in a position to do
any work as both his hands have become disabled. The disability
is 100% as far as employment as a cleaner is concerned and he has
become completely crippled. The vehicle bearing No. DL-1L-E-
3887 is owned by respondent no. 1 and it was insured with
respondent no. 2/M/s National Insurance Company Ltd. for the
period from 19.07.2002 to 18.07.2003. An additional premium
was also charged by respondent no. 2 from respondent no. 1 under
the EC Act.
3.1. The claimant was drawing wages @ ₹4,000/- per month
and food allowance of ₹50/- per day. He was aged 18 years at the
time of his accident. Respondent no. 1 was aware of the accident
on the date of occurrence itself. Respondent no. 2/ the insurer was
immediately informed of the accident. Moreover, a notice under
Section 10 of the EC Act had also been served. The accident
occurred during the course of the employment. Due to the injuries
sustained, the extent of his disability is 100% and, therefore, as per
Section 4 (1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of the EC Act, he is entitled to
temporary and permanent disablement compensation along with
interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization
and penalty to the extent of 50%. Hence, the claim seeking a
direction to the respondents to deposit the amount of compensation
as per the EC Act.
4. Separate written statement was filed by both the
respondents. Respondent no. 1 filed written statement admitting
the factum of employment and the accident. It was admitted that
the claimant had met with an accident while working as a cleaner
in the vehicle.
5. Respondent no. 2 filed written statement and an amended
written statement in which they contended that the claim filed after
a delay of 9 years from the date of the alleged accident, was not
maintainable. Respondent no. 2 denied the allegation that the
claimant had met with an accident as alleged in his application.
However, the fact that the vehicle was owned by respondent no. 1
and that it had a valid policy issued by respondent no. 2 was
admitted. The allegation that the claimant due to the accident had
become 100% disabled, was also denied. It was contended that the
driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving license. It
was also contended that though the necessary documents were
directed to be produced, respondent no. 1 failed to do so. As the
driver did not have a valid license, there has been a violation of the
policy conditions.
6. On completion of pleadings, necessary issues were raised
by the Commissioner. The parties went to trial on the basis of the
aforesaid pleadings. On behalf of the applicant/claimant, PW-1 to
PW-3 were examined and Exhibits Ex. AW1/1 to Ex. AW1/5 were
marked. On behalf of respondent no. 2, RW-1 was examined and
Exhibit Ex. R2W1/2 to Ex. R2W1/1 was marked. On
consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after
hearing both sides, the learned Commissioner condoned the delay
and allowed the claim and awarded compensation of ₹1,19,528/-
along with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of
accident, i.e., 08.08.2003 till the date of realization. Aggrieved,
respondent no. 2/ insurer has come with an appeal.
7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no.
2/ insurer that the claim was filed after a lapse of 9 years of the
alleged accident. The claimant had not produced any evidence
whatsoever in support of his claim. The claimant admits that no
crime had been registered and that there are no contemporaneous
medical records to substantiate his case. The only document that
has been produced is the disability certificate, which is dated
17.12.2012 and marked as Ex. AW1/1. The accident is alleged to
have taken place on 08.07.2003. However, the disability
certificate is dated 17.12.2012, issued after a lapse of more than 9
years and hence, the same cannot be relied on for establishing or
substantiating the claim regarding the disability sustained. That
being the position, the Commissioner went wrong in appreciating
the evidence and allowing the claim, goes the argument.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the
applicant/claimant that there has been a proper appreciation of the
materials on record and that there is no infirmity in the impugned
Award. It is also submitted that the learned Commissioner has
referred to the various decisions of the Apex Court and has rightly
appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective and, therefore,
there is no infirmity calling for an interference for this Court.
9. Heard both sides.
10. I briefly refer to the evidence adduced by the claimant in
support of the case. The applicant/claimant, Ombeer Singh was
examined as PW-1 and the affidavit filed in lieu of chief-in-
examination has been marked as PW-1/A. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that as per his voter's identity card, his
year of birth is 1993. According to him, his employer was one
Param Pal Singh who had three vehicles. PW1 does not know the
name of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of the
accident. He was unable to refer to the registration number of the
crane which had hit the vehicle in which he was working as a
cleaner. He was also unable to say the details of the goods that
were being carried in his vehicle nor could he provide the details
of the address from which the goods were loaded and the
destination where the goods were unloaded. He admitted that he
had not given a complaint to the police regarding the accident. He
also admitted that he is unable to produce any documents either
relating to the accident or relating to the injuries sustained by him.
He said that he is not possession of any documents to evidence his
case of hospitalization. He admitted that he is not in possession of
any documents to show that intimation of the accident had in fact
been given to the respondent no. 2/ insurer after the accident. He
denied the suggestion that no accident had occurred as alleged by
him.
10.1 PW-2 Prem Pal Singh deposed that the claimant
sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 08.07.2003. He
was informed about the accident and that he reached the place of
occurrence by about 3:00 P.M. and took the claimant to the
hospital, i.e. Dinesh Fracture Clinic and Maternity Centre,
Bulandsahar. PW1 was admitted in the hospital and continued to
be an in-patient for 8 days. After PW1's discharge, he was taken
to his village. PW-2 further deposed that the claimant sustained
expenses of about ₹70,000/- to ₹75,000/- for his treatment. In the
cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that the claimant is his brother
and that he had not witnessed the incident. He reiterated his case
in chief examination that his brother was admitted in the hospital
for about 7 to 8 days. However, he was also unable to refer to any
documents relating to the admission of his brother in the hospital.
10.2 PW-3 Ranjeet Singh deposed that he was working with
Tej Singh along with claimant, who was working as a cleaner in
the vehicle owned by respondent no. 1. On 08.07.2003, while he
was going along with the claimant in truck bearing No. DL-1L-E-
3887, a crane coming from the opposite side and in the wrong
direction hit his vehicle on the portion where the cleaner was
seated. The claimant sustained injuries in the accident pursuant to
which he took the claimant to Dinesh Fracture Clinic and
Maternity Centre in Bulandsahar. According to PW-3, the
claimant was hospitalized for about 7 days. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that he was never the driver
of vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1L-E-3887.
11. The specific case in the claim petition is that respondent
no. 1/ Tej Singh is the owner of the lorry in which the claimant
Ombeer was employed as a cleaner. But in his examination before
the Court, PW-1 deposed that his employer is Prem Pal. Prem Pal
was examined before this Court as PW-2 who does not have such a
case. The claimant has not explained as to why there are no
documents relating to the incident. Admittedly, no crime was
registered. Even assuming that no crime was registered, there will
certainly be documents to substantiate his case that he had been
admitted in the hospital for about 8 days. The claimant neither in
the pleadings nor in his evidence had a case that the documents
were lost and, therefore, he is unable to produce the same. The
disability certificate that has been produced is of the year 2012.
The accident is alleged to have taken place on 08.07.2003. There
is no explanation as to why the claimant was not subjected to
medical examination and why no disability certificate obtained
soon after the accident.
12. The learned Commissioner condoned the delay of 9
years, holding that, being a beneficial legislation, technicalities
should not come in the way and the benefit must go to the injured.
There is no doubt that the act being a social legislation, the
interpretation should be liberal and relief should not be denied on
technical grounds. However, in this case, it has to be noted that
there are absolutely no contemporaneous records relating to the
incident. The oral evidence let in by the claimant and his witness
also does not inspire confidence of the Court relating to the
occurrence of the incident.
13. That being the position, I find that there has been a
complete misappreciation of the evidence on record by the
Commissioner. It is true that under Section 30, it is only
substantial questions of law that can be challenged in appeal.
However, when there has been a complete misappreciation of the
evidence on record, the said aspect is required to be looked into by
this Court. I find that neither the oral nor the documentary
evidence substantiates or proves the case of the claimant and
hence, he is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
Award is set aside.
15. Application(s), if any pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 16, 2025
