KOILI BEWA Vs. AKSHAYA KR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were applicants before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. They claimed compensation of rupees one lakh on account of the death of one Natabar Jena as his heirs, who was an employee of respondent No. 1 having been engaged by him as a coolie. At the material time the deceased was unloading gunny bags from the truck O. R. U. 9101 when some gunny bags fell over him as a result of which he received injuries and succumbed to the same. The Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 55, 176. 80 and directed respondent No. 2. New India Assurance Company Ltd, to pay the amount. The insurer did not pay the compensation and approached this Court in M. A. No. 46/91 without having complied with the requirement mentioned in the third proviso to Section 30 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, "the Act"), 'which reads as below:-

(2.) THE appellants filed a petition, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 699/92, to dismiss the appeal because the non-compliance with the requirement of the aforesaid proviso. That case was, however, dismissed on October 30, 1992 because of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Shankar Behera: (1988) 1 A. C. J. 337, in which it had been held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that in an appeal by the insurer, the requirement of the aforesaid proviso is not required to be complied with. Feeling aggrieved at the dismissal of the Misc. Case on the aforesaid ground, this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge shows that this aspect has been dealt in paragraph 9 of the judgment by stating that the proviso requires the 'employer' to deposit the amount and not the 'insurer'. As, however, in that case the insurer had deposited the amount, further discussion was stated to be academic.