$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC014829732017 + FAO 456/2017 SAUDAN SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate versus VIPIN KUMAR & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 10.09.2026 1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, the appellant seeks to assail the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner in Compensation Application No.CEC/D/NE/20/2016/225. 2. Insofar as the respondent no.1, the owner of the vehicle, is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order dated 06.07.2026, wherein it has been noted that respondent no.1 has since been expired and there are no details qua his legal heirs. He further submits that no relief has been sought against respondent no.1, as the vehicle in question was duly insured. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the claim application was filed in the context of death of one Atul Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), son of Saudan Singh. It was stated in the claim application that the deceased met with a fatal accident 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 17/09/2026 at 11:40:29 while driving an auto-rickshaw. In connection with the said accident, an FIR was registered and a charge-sheet was also filed. He submits that the employer, who was the owner of the auto-rickshaw, never appeared in the proceedings before the learned Commissioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that the appellant has failed to establish that the claim pertains to the person who died in the accident in question. In this regard, he submits that while the claim application mentions the name of the deceased as Atul Kumar, the criminal proceedings and the post-mortem report mention the name of the deceased as Gyan Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant, in this regard, submits that Atul Kumar and Gyan Singh are one and the same person. However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no finding recorded by the learned Commissioner on this aspect. 5. In view of the aforesaid, it is deemed appropriate to remand the matter to the learned Commissioner for fresh consideration. All contentions of the parties are left open to be urged before the learned Commissioner. 6. The matter be listed before the Commissioner at the first instance on 28.09.2026. 7. A copy of this order be communicated to learned Commissioner. 8. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2026/rd 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 17/09/2026 at 11:40:29