$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 233/2024 and CM APPL. 41644/2024 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Mr. Bhuvan Goel, Advocates versus AJIT DEBNATH & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. R.K. Nain and Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advocates for respondent No. 1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 17.07.2026 CM APPL. 41644/2024 (Delay) 1. By way of the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the accompanying appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The application is accordingly disposed of. FAO 233/2024 1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'EC Act') assailing the award dated 03.05.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, North-West District, Delhi in Case No. ECI/78/NW/2022/1155, titled Ajit Debnath v. Taranjeet Singh & Anr., whereby compensation of Rs. 12,84,120/- along with statutory interest 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 21/07/2026 at 11:09:44 and penalty came to be awarded in favour of respondent no.1/claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him during the course of his employment. 2. Briefly stated, respondent no.1/claimant instituted a claim petition before the learned Commissioner alleging that he was employed as a driver on vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55R-1844, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with the present appellant. It was pleaded that on the intervening night of 17/18.03.2022, while transporting goods from Delhi to Kolkata, the vehicle met with an accident near Koshi Kalan, Uttar Pradesh, resulting in grievous head injuries. The vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and at the time of the accident, it was insured with the appellant vide policy no. 36170031210100001103 for the period from 05.10.2021 to 04.10.2022. The claimant was drawing wages @ Rs. 17,000/- per month and Rs. 300 /- per day as food allowances. He was 53 years old at the time of the accident. It was further pleaded that owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant suffered permanent disability rendering him incapable of continuing his vocation as a heavy transport vehicle driver and was, therefore, entitled to compensation under the EC Act. 3. The appellant-insurance company contested the claim, inter alia, disputing the claimant's entitlement to compensation, the extent of disability, the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Commissioner as well as its liability under the award. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned Commissioner held that the claimant had established that the accident arose out of and during the course of his employment and further concluded that although the permanent physical disability had been certified at 50%, the claimant had suffered 100% loss of 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 21/07/2026 at 11:09:44 earning capacity, having regard to the nature of his avocation as a transport vehicle driver. Compensation along with statutory interest and penalty was accordingly awarded. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner erred in assessing the claimant's loss of earning capacity at 100% despite the disability certificate reflecting 50% permanent disability. It is further submitted that the learned Commissioner lacked territorial jurisdiction in view of Section 21 of the EC Act, incorrectly assessed the age of the claimant as 53 years instead of 54 years while computing compensation, and wrongly fastened liability upon the appellant. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 supports the impugned award and submits that the learned Commissioner has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and returned findings which do not warrant interference in an appeal under Section 30 of the EC Act. It is submitted that the claimant, being a professional heavy transport vehicle driver, has been rendered incapable of pursuing his vocation and, therefore, the assessment of 100% loss of earning capacity is justified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. As no relief is claimed against the employer-respondent no.2, his service is dispensed with. 7. The challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Commissioner is without merit. Though the accident in question occurred at Koshi Kalan, Uttar Pradesh, respondent no.2/employer is admittedly residing at “H. No. C-2/148, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-110085”. Section 21 of the EC Act expressly permits a claim petition to be instituted before the Commissioner within whose jurisdiction the employer has his registered 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 21/07/2026 at 11:09:44 office or ordinarily resides, as the case may be. Consequently, the learned Commissioner, North-West District, Delhi, possessed the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the claim petition. Merely because the accident occurred outside Delhi would not denude the learned Commissioner of the jurisdiction otherwise vested under Section 21 proviso of the EC Act. The objection raised by the appellant is, therefore, rejected. 8. Equally unmeritorious is the contention regarding the age of the claimant. The learned Commissioner has determined the age of the claimant on the basis of the documents placed on record, including the Aadhaar Card and Driving Licence, which record his date of birth as 18.06.1968. Since the accident occurred on 17/18.03.2022, the claimant had completed 53 years of age on the date of the accident. The relevant factor has, therefore, been correctly applied by the learned Commissioner while computing compensation. 9. The principal challenge raised by the appellant relates to the assessment of loss of earning capacity. The disability certificate assessed the claimant to have suffered 50% permanent physical disability. However, the learned Commissioner, after considering the medical evidence, the testimony of the claimant and the nature of his employment as a professional heavy transport vehicle driver, returned a categorical finding that the injuries rendered him incapable of continuing the very avocation in which he was engaged prior to the accident. While doing so, reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata1 and Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar Tomar2, as well as the decisions of 1 1976 ACJ 141 2 2102 AACJ 583 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 21/07/2026 at 11:09:44 this Court holding that in an appropriate case, functional disability and consequent loss of earning capacity may exceed the percentage of permanent physical disability where the injured workman is rendered incapable of pursuing his vocation. 10. It is well settled that physical disability and loss of earning capacity are not synonymous. The latter depends upon the nature of employment and the impact of the injury on the workman's ability to earn his livelihood. In the facts of the present case, the learned Commissioner has recorded a finding, based on the evidence led by the parties, that the claimant is no longer in a position to drive a transport vehicle. The said finding is a finding of fact based upon appreciation of evidence. Nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that the same suffers from perversity or ignores any material evidence. Merely because the Medical Board assessed permanent physical disability at 50% would not ipso facto preclude the learned Commissioner from assessing the functional loss of earning capacity at a higher percentage, particularly where the vocation of the claimant stands impaired. 11. The remaining submissions urged by the appellant are pure findings of fact and do not give rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference by this Court under Section 30 of the EC Act. The scope of interference in an appeal under Section 30 of the EC Act is well settled. The Commissioner is the final authority on questions of fact and the jurisdiction of the appellate Court is confined to substantial questions of law. Unless the findings recorded by the Commissioner are shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence or founded upon an erroneous application of law, interference is unwarranted. Reference in this regard may be made to Golla 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 21/07/2026 at 11:09:44 Rajanna & Ors. v. Divisional Manager & Anr.3 ,and North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha4 . 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned award neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor discloses any perversity or illegality warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 30 of the EC Act. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. 13. In view of the dismissal of the present appeal, the interim order dated 25.07.2024 stands vacated. The learned Commissioner is directed to release the balance amount lying deposited, along with the accrued interest, if any, in favour of respondent no.1/claimant, in accordance with law. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J JULY 17, 2026 na 3 (2017) 1 SCC 45 4 (2019) 11 SCC 514 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 21/07/2026 at 11:09:44