Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 399 (MP)

Oriental Insurance Company v. Roma

2016-05-11

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2016
ORDER 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 6.1.2012 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case No.159/2004/Fatal. 2. Notices were issued to the respondents and the respondents have entered their appearance. The respondents have taken a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act as the appellant has not complied with the mandatory provisions of section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is further submitted that the appeal has been filed by the insurer without depositing the amount of interest and, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Savita Sen and others, reported in 2004(2) JLJ 214 (FB)= 2004 ACJ 2134 , and also the decision passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Tulsiram S/o nandram Khati v. Daryaobai w/o Gendalal, reported in 1998(1) MPLJ 188 , as well as the decision passed by Single Judge in Miscellaneous Appeal No.949/2010 (The Oriental Insurance Company v. Siyabai and others) decided on 13.11.2013 in which it has been held that the amount of award includes interest also. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already deposited the principal amount and the appellant is not required to pay the amount of interest as the liability of the payment of interest will come only after fixation of the liability. He relies upon the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of P.J. Narayan v. Union of India and others, reported in 2004 ACJ 452. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court and Single Bench of this Court. He relies upon the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of P.J. Narayan v. Union of India and others, reported in 2004 ACJ 452. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court and Single Bench of this Court. From perusal of the above cited judgments, it is clear that the word 'employer' which is used under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, includes the insurer also and, therefore, the provisions of section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, requires the employer to accompany certificate of deposit from the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation of the amount of compensation along with memorandum of appeal is equally applicable to the appeal filed by the insurer and the appeal at the behest of the insurer without such a certificate would not be maintainable. The word 'compensation' includes the amount of interest also as has been held by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Siyabai and others (supra). In the light of the said judgment passed by this Court, the appeal is not maintainable as the appellant has failed to deposit the amount of interest. 5. However, four months' time is granted to the appellant from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to deposit the amount of interest. D. N. Shukla for appellant; Narendra Chauhan for respondents No.1 and 2.