Delhi High Court – Orders
Ashok Kumar Badera vs M/S United India Insurance Co Ltd & Anr on 10 March, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 443/2018&CM APPL. 38977/2018
ASHOK KUMAR BADERA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. R.K. Nain, Mr. Chandan Prajapati,
Mr. Abhinav Chaudhary, Mr. Mukul
Kumar and Mr. Vikrant Malwal,
Advocates
versus
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR.....Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
ORDER
% 10.03.2026
CM APPL. 38977/2018 (Delay of 213 days)
1. Insofar as the delay in filing the present appeal is concerned, the
appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking
condonation of delay of 213 days. The application explains that the delay
occurred owing to the procedural history of the claim petition, which was
earlier withdrawn and subsequently re-filed, coupled with the financial
constraints faced by the appellant after the accident. The explanation furnished
indicates that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional.
2. The Supreme Court in Collector (LA) v. Katiji ,reported as (1987) 2 SCC
107has held that a liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 20:44:39
applications for condonation of delay so as to advance substantial justice.
Similarly,N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported as (1998) 7 SCC 123
it was observed that the length of delay is not material, what is relevant is
whether the explanation offered constitutes sufficient cause.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is satisfied
that sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, the application is allowed
and the delay of 213 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. The present application is accordingly disposed of.
FAO 443/2018
1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’
Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), the appellant has
assailed the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner,
Employees’ Compensation, District North-West, in Case No.
WCI/115/NW/17/708 titled as “Ashok Kumar Badera v. Ramesh Kumar Kalra
&Anr.”
2. In the claim application filed before the learned Commissioner under
Section 22 of the Act, the appellant claimed that he was employed as a driver
on vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1PB-9199 (Bus). It was the case of the
appellant that during the course of his employment, he met with an accident
which resulted in grievous injuries and permanent disability, thereby affecting
his earning capacity.It was further claimed that at the time of the accident, the
vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.1. The
appellant also claimed that he was about 60 years of age at the time of the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 20:44:39
accident and was earning wages of Rs. 9,000/- per month along with Rs. 200/-
per day as food allowance.
3. The respondents were served before the learned Commissioner and the
matter proceeded before the authority. However, by way of the impugned
order, the claim petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. Aggrieved
by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
4. Despite service on earlier occasions, none has appeared on behalf of the
respondents. Even today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the
respondents remain unrepresented.
5. During the pendency of proceedings before the Commissioner, it was
noted that the appellant had earlier filed a claim petition seeking compensation
which had been withdrawn, and that the said withdrawal had been permitted
without granting liberty to file a fresh claim petition. The learned
Commissioner has relied upon the earlier proceedings to hold that the present
claim petition was not maintainable.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order by
contending that the order passed by the learned Commissioner is unsustainable
in law. It is submitted that the claim petition filed by the appellant deserved
consideration on merits and that the dismissal of the claim on technical grounds
has resulted in denial of the statutory right of the appellant to seek
compensation under the Act.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the
material placed on record.
8. Time and again, the Supreme Court has taken the view that reasonsform
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 20:44:39
the heart and soul of every order/pronouncement, and as such, theimportance of
citing reasons in an order cannot be gainsaid. To elucidate, in Secretary and
Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah GanatantrikNagrik Samity and
Others reported as (2010) 3 SCC 732, it was opined asfollows:-
“40. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative
but also a judicial order must be supported by reasons,
recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound
to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation
on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the
case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power
by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving
of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the
fundamentals of sound administration of justice-delivery
system, to make known that there had been proper and due
application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an
essentialrequisite of the principles of natural justice. “The
giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of
judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and
which is the only indication to know about the manner and
quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court
concerned had really applied its mind. ” (Vide State of Orissa v.
DhaniramLuhar and State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal)
41. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces
clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless.
Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of
reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable
particularly when the order is subject to further challenge
before a higher forum. (Vide Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar,
SCC p. 527, para 19; Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of U.P., SAIL
v. STO, State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi; U.P.
SRTC v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, Ram Phal v. State of Haryana,
Mohd. Yusuf v. Faij Mohammad and State of H.P. v. Sada
Ram.)This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 20:44:39
42. Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is principle
of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by
reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and
fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely
affected may know, as to why his application has been
rejected.”
9. Besides, labour statutes, such as the Act, constitute ‘beneficial
legislation’, enacted for the welfare of employees/workmen [Refer: New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Puran Lal and Others reported as 2021 SCC OnLine
Del 3483]. In this regard, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shri. Krishan v.
Jasoda Devi and Ors. reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11137 has opined
thus:-
“43.1. The Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 is a piece of
social beneficial legislation and its provisions have to be
interpreted in a manner so as not to deprive the employees of the
benefit of the legislation. 43.2. The object for enacting the
Employees’ Compensation Act even as early as 1923 was to
ameliorate the hardship of economically poor employees who
were exposed to risks in work, or occupational hazards by
providing a cheaper and quicker machinery for compensating
them with pecuniary benefits.”
10. Notably, facts of the present case are squarely covered by the decision of
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Upender Tiwari v. M/s National
Insurance Co Ltd. &Anr., FAO 345/2018, wherein while setting aside the
impugned order and reviving the compensation application, it was held as
under:-
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 20:44:39
“…It is noted that in the proceedings arising out of the case of
Abdhesh Sharma (supra), an explanation had been called for as
to why a cryptic and non-speaking order had been passed, it not
indicating as to what was the “liberty” that had been sought or
as to why it had been not granted. A counsel had appeared
before this court in the case of Abdhesh Sharma (supra) on
behalf of the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation and, on
her request the said matter was remitted for fresh order to be
passed, it having been assured on behalf of the Commissioner,
Employees’ Compensation that the fresh order would indicate
the reasons and not be a non-speaking order.”
11. In view of the above, this Court deems it apposite to allow the present
appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the claim application
of the appellant is revived. The matter is remanded back to the concerned
authority for reconsideration and appropriate decision in accordance with law.
12. Let the claim application of the appellant be listed before theconcerned
Commissioner, on 30.03.2026,to bedecided in accordance with law.
13. Let the records received if any be also sent alongwith the copy of the
order.
14. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is disposed of alongwith the
pending applications.
15. The Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the
concernedCommissioner, Employees’ Compensation.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
MARCH 10, 2026/sn/kb
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 20:44:39
