Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 128 (ORI)

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Laxmi Kamar

2019-02-15

BISWAJIT MOHANTY

body2019
JUDGMENT : B. Mohanty, J. 1. The present writ application has been filed by the Insurance Company praying for quashing of the order dated 25.11.2017 under Annexure-3 whereby the Additional District Judge-cum-3rd M.A.C.T. Jharsuguda has directed the petitioner to pay interest to the claimants on account of delayed payment of compensation amount. 2. The opposite party no. 1 along with others filed M.A.C. No. 50 of 2014 on 25.08.2014 praying for award of compensation. On 12.12.2015 the matter being settled/compromised between the petitioner and opposite party no. 1 and other claimants, the National Level Lok Adalat passed the award directing payments in the shape of account payee cheque/demand draft within 2 months from the date of award failing which the compensation amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. The petitioner never challenged such award. The attested copy of the relevant portion of the award so passed has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with a memo in the court on 8.2.2019. On 15.12.2015 copy of the award was handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who in turn sent the same to the petitioner, which received the copy on 19.12.2015. As per the award though the payments should have been made on or before 11.2.2016, however, the deposits were made only on 18.2.2016. Complaining delay on deposits, a petition under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was moved before the learned 3rd M.A.C.T. Jharsuguda vide Annexure-1 praying for issuance of a certificate for realizing the interest amount on delayed payment. Vide Annexure-2, the petitioner filed its show cause taking the plea that as it received the award of Lok Adalat on 19.12.2015, therefore by depositing the cheques on 18.2.2016, they have complied with the direction of Lok Adalat within the time period fixed by the Lok Adalat. Thus, there has been no delay in carrying out the award of Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the petitioner denied its liability to pay interest. Considering all these factors and relying on the language used in the award, the learned 3rd M.A.C.T. Jharsuguda rejected the plea of the petitioner and directed it to pay interest @ 9% from the date of application i.e. 25.08.2014 to 18.2.2016 to claimants. 3. Challenging the same, the present writ application has been filed. Mr. Considering all these factors and relying on the language used in the award, the learned 3rd M.A.C.T. Jharsuguda rejected the plea of the petitioner and directed it to pay interest @ 9% from the date of application i.e. 25.08.2014 to 18.2.2016 to claimants. 3. Challenging the same, the present writ application has been filed. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Tribunal has gone wrong in awarding interest as in the factual background there has been no delay in depositing the compensation. In this context, he pointed out that though the award was passed on 12.12.2015, but a copy of the same was received by the petitioner only on 19.12.2015. Since, the two months period granted by the award was to expire on 18.2.2016, on the said date the deposits were made. Thus, there has been no delay in making deposits. Secondly, he submitted that the claimants having accepted the deposits without any objection, cannot now pray for interest. In this context, he relied upon a decision of this Court dated 30.11.2016 passed in W.P. (C) No. 12084 of 2015 in the case of Nityananda Bag and Another vs. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company and Others. 4. So far as 1st submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same is liable to be rejected for the following reasons. The language of the Lok Adalat award which was passed on compromise/settlement between the claimants and the petitioner is very clear. The relevant portion of the award is quoted hereunder:- "xxx xxx xxx Out of the awarded amount of Rupees Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand) only, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thousand) only shall be kept in shape of fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner No. 2 Ganesh Kamar for a period of Fifteen (15) years, an amount Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) only shall be kept in shape of fixed deposit in the name of petitioner No1 Laxmi Kamar in any Nationalised Bank without facility of withdrawal in any manner and Rest of the amount Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) only shall be kept in shape of fixed deposit in the name of petitioner No1 Laxmi Kamar in any Nationalised Bank without facility of withdrawal in any manner and Rest of the amount Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) only shall be paid in cash to the petitioner No. 1 by the insurance company in shape of A/c payee Cheque/D.D. (Demand Draft) within two months from the date of award failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 9% (Nine Per cent) per annum from the date of application till realization in accordance with law." 5. The above noted para makes it clear that the petitioner therein had agreed that payments would be made within two months "from the date of award" failing which the compensation amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization in accordance with law. As indicated above, the date of award is 12.12.2015. Therefore, the period of two months is to be calculated from the said date i.e. 12.12.2015 not from the date of receipt of the copy of award. When a calculation is made on these basis, the cheques should have been deposited on or before 11.2.2016 by the petitioner. In fact, from the date of receipt of copy of award i.e. 19.12.2015 to 11.2.2016, the petitioner had got enough time i.e. around 54 days for depositing the compensation amount. However, it made the deposits on 18.2.2016. Therefore, without any semblance of doubt, there has been delay in making payment. In such background, the petitioner having agreed for payment of interest in case of delay cannot refuse to pay the same. 6. Now coming to the 2nd contention of Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner that since the claimants received the compensation without objection, now they cannot claim interest; it may be stated here that this ground was never taken in the show cause filed by the petitioner under Annexure-2. Had such a ground been taken, the claimants could have got an opportunity to have their say on the said issue and this Court would have the benefit of perusing a reasoned order of the Tribunal also on the said issue. Since the petitioner never raised this plea, they should not be permitted to raise such a plea now. Had such a ground been taken, the claimants could have got an opportunity to have their say on the said issue and this Court would have the benefit of perusing a reasoned order of the Tribunal also on the said issue. Since the petitioner never raised this plea, they should not be permitted to raise such a plea now. Besides, the petitioner has not pointed out any jurisdictional error in the impugned order as the same has been passed in tune with the mandate of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Moreover, the decision relied by the petitioner in the case of Nityananda Bag (Supra) is factually distinguishable. In that case there is nothing to show that the same involved an award passed by Lok Adalat based on compromise and settlement. Here as indicated earlier the petitioner itself has agreed that payments be made within 2 months from the date of award, failing which the compensation amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization in accordance with law. Here since admittedly there has been a delay in making deposits, the petitioner cannot be permitted to resile from its own commitment for paying interest. Further, as indicated earlier in the present case the petitioner has never pleaded about claimants accepting the deposits without any objection in Annexure-2. 7. Thus there exists no error apparent on the face of the impugned order. 8. For all these reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-3 and accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. However, for the laches of official, the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer loss. Therefore, it is directed that it should take all necessary steps to recover the amount paid towards interest from the salary of the officer/officers, who is/are responsible for the delay in making deposits.