Delhi High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs Anil Kumar on 7 November, 2025
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 07.11.2025
+ FAO 464/2018
MUKESH KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Praveen Suri and Mr. Sumit
Pandey, Advs.
versus
ANIL KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Bijay Kumar and Mr. Ashok
Nigam, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
CM APPL. 40797/2018
1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 826 days in filing the
appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923
(the Act). The appeal has been preferred challenging Annexure A-1
order dated 22.04.2016 of the Employees' Compensation
Commissioner, West and New Delhi, in CEC/1/WD/102/14/305-
306, whereby the appellant/claimant's claim for compensation on
account of an injury alleged to have been sustained during the
course of employment was rejected.
2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 02.05.2014, he was
employed with the respondent, on which day he was sent to attend a
complaint for repairing an air conditioner (AC) at D-146, Ajay
Enclave, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi. While attending to the
complaint and carrying out repairs, the AC unit exploded, as a result
of which his left hand was grievously injured. The injury had led to
amputation of his left hand below the elbow, leading to 70%
permanent physical disability and a consequent loss of earning
capacity. On 02.05.2014 itself, a crime, that is, FIR bearing No.
458/2014 was registered at Hari Nagar Police Station, New Delhi,
against the respondent, alleging the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 287 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
2.1. The appellant/claimant, on 22.09.2014, filed a claim
petition before the Employees' Compensation Commissioner, New
Delhi, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained. The claim
was, however, dismissed on the ground that there was no employer-
employee relationship between the appellant/claimant and the
respondent.
2.2. The allegation in the application is that the appellant, an
illiterate person, was unaware of the fact that his claim petition had
been dismissed on 22.04.2016. The counsel earlier engaged by him
was not regular in appearing before the Court. The appellant was
never given a copy of the claim petition. Whenever the
appellant/claimant used to inquire regarding the status of the claim
petition, the counsel kept telling him that no decision had been
taken on the same.
2.3. It is further alleged that the appellant sought the help of
the present counsel to inquire about the crime registered. The
counsel made necessary inquiries and informed him that his claim
was dismissed on 22.04.2016. Thereafter, he applied for a certified
copy of the impugned Order by the end of March 2018, which was
ready on 10.04.2018. However, the same was supplied to him only
by the middle of May 2018.
2.4. In July 2018, the appellant/claimant, through his present
counsel, filed a writ petition bearing diary number 308072/2018,
challenging Annexure A-1. A copy of the filing details of the said
writ petition has been attached to the application. However, the
Registry raised an objection stating that a writ petition was not
maintainable. Thereafter, the defects were rectified by converting
the writ petition into an appeal as provided under Section 30 of the
Act, along with the present application.
3. The application is opposed by the respondent, who has filed
a counter, contending that the appellant/claimant was personally
appearing before the Employees' Compensation Commissioner and
that he was well aware of the dismissal of the claim petition. It is
further contended that there are no sufficient or bona fide reason(s)
provided in the application explaining the delay.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant that, as the latter is an illiterate person and as the
incident is established by registering of the crime, a lenient view
may be taken and the delay be condoned. The submission is
opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, who submits that
no cogent reasons are made out to condone the long delay.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The impugned order in this case is dated 22.04.2016. The
appeal has been filed only on 29.09.2018, which is more than two
years after the passing of the impugned Order. The
appellant/claimant has put the entire blame on the counsel earlier
engaged by him for the delay in filing the appeal. It is alleged that
he had been in constant touch with the counsel. The then counsel is
alleged to have repeatedly assured him that the claim was pending
consideration before the authority concerned. He does not specify
the date on which he is stated to have come to know of the
impugned order. He has no case that, after he came to know of the
dismissal, he had contacted his earlier counsel and sought an
explanation as to why he had not been informed of the dismissal as
soon as the order was passed. In the application itself, he has a case
that the counsel earlier engaged by him was not regular in appearing
before the court. If he was well aware of the fact that the counsel
concerned was not diligent in prosecuting the matter, it is beyond
my comprehension as to why the services of the said counsel were
continued by the appellant. The reasons cited for the condonation of
delay are therefore found insufficient.
7. For the reasons hereinabove stated, the application for
condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal shall also
stand dismissed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 7, 2025/mj
