MUKESH KUMAR vs ANIL KUMAR

Judgment text excerpt

$~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 Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJ BALA FAO 464/2018 Page 1 of 6 Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:39:22 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/cla