ORDER: 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant who was working as a driver in a truck owned by the second respondent met with an accident on 15th September, l982 at 11.30 a.m. on the Jaipur highway. While he was alighting from the truck which was being driven by him, he was hit by another truck which was coming from behind, which resulted in his suffering multiple fractures. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he suffered 95% disability which resulted in the amputation of right leg. 3. The second respondent informed the first respondent-insurance Company about the accident as the claim of the appellant had to be settled by the first respondent. The appellant was completely bed ridden for a long time and, so, there was delay in approaching the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi complaining about the inaction of the first respondent in settling his claim and also claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The State Commission dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant on the ground of delay. The order passed by the State Commission was affirmed by the National Commission by an Order dated 22nd May, 2002. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 27th May, 2003 seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him, but the same was withdrawn by him on 16th December, 2004. 4. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under the Employees Compensation Act before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission) on 17th December, 2004. By an order dated 7th July, 2006, the Commissioner while taking note of the disability of the appellant in not being able to move out of the bed for a long period of time and thereafter his approaching every fora for relief and the fact that there was no repudiation of the contract by the Insurance company held, that the claim made by the appellant was not barred by limitation. After examining the matter on merits, the Commissioner directed payment of Rs. 3,90,411/-. In addition, an amount of Rs. 1,95,206/- was directed to be paid towards penalty as contemplated under section 4A of the Employees Compensation Act. The first respondent filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the order passed by the Commissioner. After examining the matter on merits, the Commissioner directed payment of Rs. 3,90,411/-. In addition, an amount of Rs. 1,95,206/- was directed to be paid towards penalty as contemplated under section 4A of the Employees Compensation Act. The first respondent filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the order passed by the Commissioner. The appeal was allowed by the Delhi High Court and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 7th July, 2006 was set aside. The High Court went wrong in setting aside the order of the Commissioner on the ground that there was no discussion regarding limitation and no reasons were given by the Commissioner to condone the delay. There is a clear finding by the Commissioner that the first respondent did not repudiate the contract and hence it cannot be said that the period of limitation had started. There is a detailed consideration by the Commissioner about the disability of the Appellant for a long period of time and the fact of his approaching the Consumer fora and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 5. Taking into consideration the present physical state of the appellant, the fact that he has been fighting for rightful compensation for the past 30 years and the fact that the claim is not barred by limitation, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the order dated 7th July, 2006 passed by the Commissioner. 6. The Civil Appeal is allowed.