JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. 1. In both the writ petitions since common question is involved, same is being decided by a common order. In W.P. (C) No. 10433 of 2005 the New India Assurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager has filed this writ petition, case is that claimant Mukta Jani while working as labourer in the truck bearing Registration No. OR-01-2160 belonging to the opposite party No. 1, had died on 3.11.1999 in course of his employment. Pursuant to notice owner of the vehicle entered appearance and filed written statement. Insurer of the vehicle i.e. the petitioner has filed written statement denying liability. Learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jeypore in W.C. No. 58 of 1999 after taking into facts and circumstances of the case vide order dated 20.7.2002 awarded amount of Rs. 1,01,213/- and directed the present petitioner to pay the same within 60 days from the date of passing of the order failing which the petitioner would be liable to pay interest under section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Petitioner deposited the entire award amount before the Commissioner on 15.4.2003. Thereafter, petitioner has filed an application to recall the part of the order by which petitioner has been directed to pay interest in making non-payment of the amount within period of 60 days on account of the reason that the petitioner is not at all liable to pay any interest. Learned Commissioner decided the matter on 6.5.2005 rejected the same, hence this writ petition. 2. In W.P. (C) No. 10433 of 2005 the New India Assurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager has filed this writ petition against the award dated 20.7.2002 passed in W.C. 57 of 1999 directing payment of Rs. 2,10,621/- on account of death of brother of the petitioner namely Lachhu Muduli who was working as labourer in truck bearing Registration No. OR-01-2160 belonging to the opposite party No. 1. Petitioner has deposited awarded amount before the learned Commissioner on 15.4.2003, filed an application for recall of the part of the order by which direction was passed by the Commissioner to pay interest if the awarded amount will not be paid within period of 60 days, but the same has been rejected vide order dated 6.5.2005, hence this writ petition. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted has submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay interest under the Workmen's Compensation Act hence order of awarding amount of interest is without any jurisdiction. 4. This Court has issued notice on 15.9.2005 with direction upon the petitioner to deposit the award amount for the period from 21.8.2002 to 15.4.2003, petitioner has deposited the awarded amount. Notices have been issued, acknowledge receipt from opposite parties 1 and 2 after valid service have been received, but none represented, hence matter is decided on the basis of the materials on record. 5. Case of the petitioner in both the writ petitions is that petitioner being an Insurance Company is not liable to pay interest under section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In order to adjudicate this issue it is relevant to see the provision of Section 4-A(3) of the Act which is being quoted for ready reference: "Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall- (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty: Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause(b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause as it should not be passed. 3-A-The interest and the penalty payable under sub-section (3) shall be paid to the workman or his dependant, as the case may be." This provision of section 4-A(3) stipulates that in case of any default in paying compensation due under this Act within one month from the date learned Commissioner has been directed to impose interest. 6. 3-A-The interest and the penalty payable under sub-section (3) shall be paid to the workman or his dependant, as the case may be." This provision of section 4-A(3) stipulates that in case of any default in paying compensation due under this Act within one month from the date learned Commissioner has been directed to impose interest. 6. Claim has been decided by the learned Commissioner directing the Insurance Company to make payment of the amount under Section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Learned Commissioner has fixed liability at the insurance company since vehicle was insured. Petitioner has not challenged the award passed by the learned Commissioner rather he has implemented the same by making deposit of the amount on 15.4.2003 i.e. beyond the stipulated period directed by the learned commissioner in the award dated 6.5.2005 wherein learned Commissioner has directed the petitioner to deposit the amount within period of 60 days failing which Insurance company i.e. the petitioner is held liable to pay interest under section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Petitioner being aggrieved with that part of the order has filed this writ petition. 7. Now question is that the Insurance Company has not challenged the award in totality rather he has accepted the award, deposited money but after due date of 60 days can he assail the part of the award that too after making default in making payment of awarded amount as per direction of the learned Commissioner dated 6.5.2005. 8. Workmen's Compensation Act has been enacted to compensate certain classes of employers for injury by accident, the Workmen's Compensation Act has came into force on 1st July, 1924, amended time to time. In this case, the kith and kin of the opposite party No. 1 in both the cases have died due to injuries sustained in course of accident, resolving this claim cases having been filed under the provisions of Workmen's compensation Act before the learned Commissioner. Learned Commissioner after taking into consideration the fact that vehicle was insured with the petitioner, hence invoking jurisdiction as conferred upon the learned Commissioner under section 14 of the Act, 1923 has passed the award. Learned Commissioner after taking into consideration the fact that vehicle was insured with the petitioner, hence invoking jurisdiction as conferred upon the learned Commissioner under section 14 of the Act, 1923 has passed the award. The petitioner has not challenged legality of the award rather he has challenged part of the order by which petitioner has been directed to pay interest in terms of Section 4-A(3) of the Act in case of failing in making payment within period of 60 days. Petitioner has not paid the awarded amount within period of 60 days and after making default payment he has challenged the same which is not permissible in the eye of law because of the reason that a party once chosen to accept the order he will be ceased to challenge the part of the order. The Insurance Company have implemented the order by making payment but beyond period of 60 days, hence petitioner is liable to pay interest as directed by the learned Commissioner in the award impugned. 9. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that action of the learned Commissioner is without any jurisdiction, the same cannot be accepted because the Commissioner has been empowered under the provisions of section 4-A(3) which provides that where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled banks as the case may be specified by the Central Government. 10. Sole question raised by the petitioner is that since the petitioner is not an employer rather Insurance Company, hence provisions of section 4-A(3) cannot be invoked, this argument is not available by the petitioner at this stage since the petitioner has accepted the award, made payment of awarded amount and when he has made payment certainly he will be liable to pay interest also. Hence, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Commissioner to that effect of making payment of interest under section 4-A(3) is without any jurisdiction. 11. Hence, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Commissioner to that effect of making payment of interest under section 4-A(3) is without any jurisdiction. 11. Reference may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir AIR 1993 SC 352 : LNIND 1992 SC 768 wherein at para-10 their Lordship has been pleased to hold: "Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that "a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid any thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage". (See: Verschures Creameries Ltd. v. Hull and Netherlands Steamship Co. Ltd., (1921) 2 R.B. 608, at p. 612, SCRUTTON, L.J). According to HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND, 4th Edn., Vol. 16, "after taking an advantage under an order (for example for the payment of costs) a party may be precluded from saying that it is invalid and asking to set it aside" In another judgment rendered in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Golden Chariot Airport and Another (2010) 10 SCC 422 : LNIND 2010 SC 911 wherein at paragraph-45 their Lordships has been pleased to hold: "The common law doctrine prohibiting approbation and reprobation is a facet of the law of estoppels and well established in our jurisprudence also. The doctrine of election was discussed by Lord Blackburn in the decision of the House of Lords in Scarf v. Jardine wherein the learned Lords formulated (AC p. 361) "... The doctrine of election was discussed by Lord Blackburn in the decision of the House of Lords in Scarf v. Jardine wherein the learned Lords formulated (AC p. 361) "... a party in his own mind has thought that he would choose one of two remedies, even though he has written it on a memorandum or has indicated it in some other way, that alone will not bind him; but so soon as he has not only determined to follow one of his remedies but has communicated it to the other side in such a way as to lead the opposite party to believe that he has made that choice, he has completed his election and can go no further; and whether he intended it or not, if he has done an unequivocal act.... The fact of his having done that unequivocal act to the knowledge of the persons concerned is an election." 12. Thus law is well settled that a person cannot approbate by accepting the benefit and at the same time reprobate by denying of its other direction. Applying the same principle in the case in hand it is not open to the petitioner to challenge part of the order regarding interest by accepting part of the order by which he has been directed to make payment under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order needs no interference. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit.