* 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 d