ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KAILASH PRASAD PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short "W.C Act") has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case No. 100/2001/WC Act (Non-fatal). A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that on 1.10.2002 award to pay Rs. 4,72,944/- was passed by learned Commissioner and it was further directed that if said amount is not deposited within 45 days it shall carry interest @9% per annum. Learned Counsel further submits that within the stipulated period of 45 days, the amount of compensation Rs. 4,72,944/- has not been deposited and therefore before filing the appeal a certificate was to be obtained by the appellant and it should have been accompanied with the memorandum of this appeal to the effect that appellant has deposited with the Commissioner the amount payable under the award appealed against. Since interest part was not deposited in the Court below within 45 days, on 46th day if any amount was deposited it should have been deposited alongwith interest.

(2.) Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that amount of compensation was deposited only on 14.11.2003 and that too without interest and therefore looking to third proviso to section 30 of WC Act this appeal is not maintainable.

(3.) The factual aspect has not been disputed by learned Counsel for appellant. Admittedly the award is dated 1.10.2002 and it has been directed to pay a' sum of Rs. 4,72,944/- within 45 days, failing which it would carry interest @9% per annum and therefore, according to me, if after 45 days amount of compensation was deposited, it should have been deposited alongwith interest. Since this has not been done, according to me, looking to the mandate given in third proviso to section 30 of WC Act, this appeal is not maintainable. The preliminary objection raised by learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 is upheld. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.