$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC012763562016 + FAO 523/2016, CM APPL. 41381/2016 & CM APPL. 46375/2016 M/S BAJAJ INDUSTRIES .....Appellant Through: Mr. Prince Kathuria, Advocate versus VIJAY YADAV .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hari Kishan, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 11.08.2026 CM APPL. 41384/2016 (delay in filing the appeal) 1. By way of present application, the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of delay of 5 days in filing the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection if the present application is allowed. 3. In view of the no objection given by the respondent and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. FAO 523/2016 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (‘the Act’) assailing the order dated 04.07.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, whereby the respondent was awarded compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him during the course of his employment with the appellant. 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 19/08/2026 at 12:09:50 2. A perusal of the proceedings would show that vide order dated 11.04.2018, the Predecessor Bench had directed 50% of the award amount to be deposited, and later part of this award amount was directed to be released to the respondent. The registry shall release the remaining amount alongwith the interest accrued to the respondent, and the remaining balance amount be also paid by the appellant to the respondent within two weeks from today, failing after it carry an interest of 12% till realization. 3. The respondent, who was working with the appellant-M/s Bajaj Industries, sustained injuries on 28.02.2015 while working on a machine in the course of his employment. As a result of the accident, he suffered amputation of four fingers and one-third of the thumb of his right hand. He was treated for the injuries sustained by him and thereafter filed a claim seeking compensation under the Act. The claim petition records that the respondent was drawing wages of Rs.15,000/- per month and claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. 4. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the learned Commissioner allowed the claim and awarded compensation. While determining the amount payable, the learned Commissioner took into account the nature of injuries suffered by the respondent, his age and the wages relevant for computation of compensation under the Act. The award was thereafter corrected vide order dated 17.08.2016. 5. A perusal of the proceedings would show that vide order dated 11.04.2018, the Predecessor Bench had directed 50% of the award amount to be deposited, and later on, part of this deposited award amount was directed to be released to the respondent. The Registry shall release the remaining amount alongwith the interest accrued thereon to the respondent. 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 19/08/2026 at 12:09:50 The balance amount, if any, payable under the award shall also be paid by the appellant to the respondent within two weeks from today, failing which it shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till realization. 6. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Commissioner has wrongly applied the relevant entry under Schedule I, Part II of the Act while assessing the loss of earning capacity. Learned counsel submits that Serial No. 27 ought to have been applied. It is further submitted that the respondent had suffered an injury resulting in amputation of only one-third of the thumb, and therefore the percentage of loss of earning capacity adopted by the learned Commissioner is excessive. It is further submitted that the learned Commissioner ought to have assessed the disability strictly in terms of the percentage prescribed under the Schedule. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned award and submits that the learned Commissioner has correctly appreciated the nature of the injuries and the effect thereof on the respondent's earning capacity. 8. The contention by the learned counsel for the appellant, however, does not merit acceptance. The learned Commissioner, while determining the compensation, has taken into consideration the nature of injuries suffered by the respondent, namely, loss of four fingers and one-third of the thumb of the right hand. The principal submission of learned counsel for the appellant is essentially an invitation to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own assessment for that of the learned Commissioner. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 30 of Act, this Court does not sit as a Court of first appeal on questions of fact. Interference is 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 19/08/2026 at 12:09:50 warranted only where a substantial question of law arises or where the finding of the Commissioner is shown to be perverse or unsupported by the evidence on record. 9. The principles governing exercise of the writ/appellate jurisdiction in such circumstances, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan1, make it clear that a finding of fact cannot be interfered with merely because another view of the evidence may be possible. The present case does not disclose any such perversity or error of law warranting interference with the impugned award. 10. Insofar as the appellant's challenge to the percentage of disability is concerned, the nature of the injury suffered by the respondent is undisputed to the extent that he sustained serious injuries to his right hand, including loss of four fingers and a part of the thumb. The learned Commissioner was therefore justified in considering the injury in the context of the work which the respondent was performing at the time of the accident. The principles governing assessment of loss of earning capacity, also recognises that the determination cannot be made by looking at physical disability in isolation and has to be considered in the context of the work being performed by the workman. The principle is particularly relevant in the present case where the respondent suffered substantial loss of the fingers and thumb of his right hand while working on a machine. The aforesaid principle is also reflected in Shankarlal v. General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay V.T.2, wherein it was held that incapacity is required to be assessed in relation to the work which the workman was performing at the time of the accident and that 1 AIR 1964 SC 477 2 1990 SCC OnLine MP 51 : 1990 ACJ 1028 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 19/08/2026 at 12:09:50 medical evidence regarding physical disability cannot, by itself, be determinative of loss of earning capacity. 11. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the award. 12. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 13. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, CM APPL. 41381/2016, seeking stay of the impugned award, is rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. The interim orders passed in the present proceedings shall stand vacated. 14. The amount deposited by the appellant with the Registry pursuant to the interim orders shall be released to the respondent alongwith the interest accrued thereon. 15. Any balance amount payable under the award, including interest as directed herein, shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within two weeks from today, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till realization. 16. The pending application, if any, stands disposed of in the above terms. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J AUGUST 11, 2026 na 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 19/08/2026 at 12:09:50