$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010400642019 + FAO 402/2019 and CM APPL. 44369/2019 CHANDER BASS .....Appellant Through: None versus M/S RISHABH STEELS & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Harshit Jain, Mr. Arjun Drall, Mr. Utsav Tarsolia and Ms. Devangi Gupta, Advocates for respondent No.1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 14.09.2026 The matter is taken up today as 11.09.2026 was declared holiday vide Notification No. 86/G-4/Genl.-I/DHC dated 08.09.2026. 1. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the sole proprietor of M/s Rishabh Steels/respondent No.1 has expired and that the appellant has not taken steps to bring the legal heirs on record. He refers to the order dated 18.05.2023, wherein it was recorded that the Proprietor as well as the Manager of the respondent firm had expired and time was sought to provide the details of their legal heirs. It is further noticed from the order dated 02.02.2026 that although an advance copy of the application for bringing the legal heirs on record had been received, no such application had been filed with the records of the case. The appellant has not been represented on the last two dates of hearing and, therefore, this Court, with the assistance of learned counsel for the respondents, has gone through the record as well as 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 18/09/2026 at 11:19:01 the TCR. The challenge in the present appeal, filed under Section 30 of the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), pertains to an order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. In the claim application, it was claimed that the appellant was working as Karigar with the respondents at a monthly wage of Rs.5,000/- per month and was not provided with any legal benefits. It was alleged that on 13.03.2010, while he was working in the respondents’ factory, he met with an accident and suffered an injury to his right eye, which eventually resulted in loss of vision. The appellant, who was 29 years of age at the relevant time, claimed compensation on account of of 50% loss of earning capacity. 3. The respondent No.1 entered appearance and contested the claim. While admitting the factum of employment, it was stated that the appellant had already left the employment on the date of the alleged accident. It was further stated that the appellant was engaged in the business of selling fruit juice as a hawker and, therefore, the claim was not maintainable. Respondent No.2, who was the manager of respondent No.1, adopted similar pleas and also raised the objection that the claim was barred by limitation. 4. The learned Commissioner, upon consideration of pleadings and evidence, had framed following issues for consideration: i. Whether the employer-employee relationship exists between the respondents and claimant. ii. Whether the accident resulting into injured to 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 18/09/2026 at 11:19:01 workman occurred out and during the course of this employment? iii. what amount of compensation to injured w/m its entitled to and who is liable to pay the Compensation R-1 & R-II. iv. What directions are necessary passed in this regard? 5. The claimant, who examined himself as CW-1, filed his affidavit by way of evidence reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. He also relied upon documents including copy of the demand letter dated 01.12.2012, postal receipts, copy of reminder of demand notice dated 30.04.2013 along with medical treatment record and a copy of diary maintained by the claimant. Pertinently, the appellant himself has taken inconsistent stands with respect to the date of the alleged accident. While the claim petition mentions the date of accident as 13.03.2010, the affidavit by way of evidence mentions 13.08.2010. Further, during his cross- examination, the appellant categorically denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place on 13.03.2010 and instead stated that the accident occurred on 14.08.2010. He also deposed that the medical documents filed by him reflected the date of accident as 14.08.2010. 6. On the other hand, the management examined three witnesses, namely Roshan Lal Jain, the proprietor, as RW-1, Satbir Jain, the manager, as RW-2, and Neeraj Jain, son of Satbir Jain, as RW-3. Roshan Lal Jain, in his written statement, stated that he had not attended to the business since the year 2005 after falling ill and, therefore, denied having any knowledge of the alleged accident dated 14.08.2010, stating that the claimant was involved in the management of the business at that time. Satbir Jain stated that the claimant had left the services in March, 2010 and, despite efforts to 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 18/09/2026 at 11:19:01 contact him, his whereabouts remained unknown. A suggestion that the workman was employed as on 14.08.2010 was denied, which was also the stand taken by RW-3. Thus, the record itself reflects three different dates of the alleged accident emerging from the appellant’s own case, namely 13.03.2010 in the claim petition, 13.08.2010 in the affidavit by way of evidence and 14.08.2010 in the cross-examination. The learned Commissioner took note of these material inconsistencies while rejecting the claim. 7. In the present appeal, the appellant has, for the first time, sought to contend that his services were terminated in December, 2012, whereafter he initiated proceedings for compensation. This is an altogether new plea, which neither finds mention in the claim petition nor forms part of the case set up before the learned Commissioner. The said averment is, therefore, not borne out from the record. 8. It is well settled that the scope of interference under Section 30 of the Act is confined to substantial questions of law, and the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner are not liable to be re-appreciated in appeal unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. (Ref: North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha1 and Golla Rajanna & Ors. v. Divisional Manager & Anr.2) 9. On a perusal of the appeal paper book as well as the Trial Court record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The learned Commissioner has returned findings after appreciating the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, particularly the appellant’s own inconsistent 1 (2019) 11 SCC 514 2 (2017) 1 SCC 45 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 18/09/2026 at 11:19:01 version regarding the date of the alleged accident. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant’s case underwent material variations at different stages of the proceedings and the learned Commissioner has assigned cogent reasons for disbelieving the claim. 10. Accordingly, the present appeal, alongwith the pending applications, is dismissed. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 14, 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 18/09/2026 at 11:19:01