JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This appeal involves a challenge to the judgment passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Jeypore in W.C. Case No.18 of 2004 on 22.09.2005. 2. The undisputed fact involved in this appeal is, while working as Lineman-C under the Appellant and attending to a call for maintenance work of the 11 KV A.B. Switch, a live conductor of 1.6 MVA, (1 Phase), 33/11 KV transformer at Komna was snapped and fell at the right-hand palm of the Respondent. It is also admitted that the live conductor was snapped due to heavy wind pressure, lightening and storm which was beyond the control of a human being. It is also admitted that on sustaining injury the Respondent was shifted to the Hospital by the authority and his all medical expenses are borne by the department. On the premises of such accident a claim petition was filed by the Respondent claiming compensation on the application of provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Appellant herein on appearance filed written statement strongly refuting the claim of the claimant, though did not contest on the subject of master and servant, but the Appellant took stand that since the accident occurred due to heavy wind pressure, lightening and storm, the same is an act of god, therefore the Appellant is not responsible for the unexpected incident. Appellant also attempted to bring evidence through evidence process. Based on the materials available on record, the Authority below after answering the issues in favour of the claimant held the Opposite Parties i.e. the present Appellant liable to pay compensation to meet the loss sustained to the claimant and accordingly, directed the Appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,07,094/- before the Commissioner within sixty days and failure of which the Appellant-Opposite Party shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum till the date of deposit. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Appellant taking this Court to the ground no.'C', pleadings of the Opposite Parties recorded in the first and second paragraph of the judgment and further the evidence of the Opposite Parties available at page 4 of the judgment contended that even though there is no denial that the claimant was working at the relevant point of time, but however, for the stand of the Opposite Parties therein that snapping of the live conductor was made by virtue of heavy wind pressure, lightening and storm at the relevant point of time, the Appellant may not be held responsible. It is, however, admitted that the injury involving the workman took place while he was working and not only that there is also admission that the employee after sustaining injury was also shifted to the Hospital and treated by the establishment. It is, in the premises, Mr. Acharya, learned counsel claimed that the accident is caused due to the act of god and the Appellant-Opposite Party has no control over the same. Mr. Acharya, therefore, contended that the award of compensation on the head of the Appellant-Opposite Party becomes bad. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Appellant also made an alternate request that in the worse there should be interference in the interest part and the rate of interest may be reduced from 12%. 4. Considering the submission of Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Appellant and looking to the averments made in this appeal memo as well as the evidence before the authority below, this Court finds, there is no denial to the fact that the claimant sustained injury while working. Therefore, there is no dispute that the injury sustained to the claimant took place in course of and arising out of employment. Looking to the stand of the Appellant Opposite Party that for the heavy wind pressure, lightening and storm, the situation should be taken as an act of god, this Court finds, in the event there was heavy wind pressure, lightening and storm at the relevant point of time, nothing prevented the employer not to ask the workman to attend the work at the relevant point of time. There is no material to establish that in spite of denial of the authority not to undertake such work for the situation at the relevant point of time, the workman went to attain the work. There is no material to establish that in spite of denial of the authority not to undertake such work for the situation at the relevant point of time, the workman went to attain the work. For the nature of the injury and admission of the Appellant Opposite Party that after coming to know about such injury, not only it shifted the injured to a hospital but also borne all expenditure during his treatment. This Court finds, there is no error in the assessment made by the Commissioner in holding the accident arose in course of and arising out of employment. This Court, therefore, finds no scope to interfere in the grant of compensation. 5. Now coming to the interest aspect charged at the rate of 12% per annum this Court finds, the judgment of the Commissioner was passed on 26.09.2005 and there was a direction in the order portion to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.1,07,094/- in shape of Bank draft before the Commissioner within sixty days and the interest clause will come to the play only in case of default in making such deposit. This Court here finds, this appeal was filed on 23.11.2005 and the statutory deposit under the Act having been made on 16.11.2005 involving the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2005, there is no room for considering the request of Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Appellant for interfering in the interest aspect. This Court, therefore, declines to interfere in the impugned award. As the amount is already deposited since 16.11.2005 and kept by the authority below in fixed deposit, the aforesaid amount along with interest accrued thereon in between be released in favour of the Claimant within a period of fifteen days from the date of communication of a copy of this order. As there is no appearance on behalf of the Respondent, the Appellant is directed to bring this order to the notice of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Asst. Labour Commissioner, Jeypore for release of the amount in favour of the Respondent Petitioner. Registry is also directed to communicate this order to the claimant as well as the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Asst. Labour Commissioner, Jeypore for his/her doing the needful, but however, at the cost of the Appellant, who undertakes to file process fee for such communication through registered post with A.D. within a period of ten days hence. 6. Registry is also directed to communicate this order to the claimant as well as the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Asst. Labour Commissioner, Jeypore for his/her doing the needful, but however, at the cost of the Appellant, who undertakes to file process fee for such communication through registered post with A.D. within a period of ten days hence. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction the FAO stands disposed of. 7. As restrictions due to COVID-19 pandemic situation are continuing, Party(s) may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.