ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GAJENDRA PRUSTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under the Letters Patent purport of the word 'lie' appearing in the third proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act') is the pivotal question for consideration, in addition to other questions which shall be dealt with infra. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurer') calls in question legality of judgment of a learned Single Judge holding that the Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 30 of the Act was defective and consequentially was not maintainable, as the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that appellant had deposited with him the amount payable nder the order appealed against. That was the interpretation given to the expression "lie" appearing in third proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. The quantum awarded by the Commissioner as compensation to Gajendra Prusty (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was under-challenge.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the insurer submitted that a narrow meaning cannot be given to the expression 'lie' and the interpretation put on the said word does not bring out the true import of the expression. It is also submitted that the loss of earning capacity which is the sine qua non for fixation of compensation, has not been assessed as required under the statute, and therefore, the quantum as awarded by the Commissioner is not reasonable.

(3.) SRI S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the workman on the other hand submitted that three decisions of this Court have put the dispute beyond shadow of doubt that if the memorandum of appeal is not accompanied by the requisite certificate, the appeal has to be summarily dismissed. Reliance is placed for this purpose on the decisions of this Court in Central Engineering Corporation v. Dorai Raj : 1988 65 ACJ 19 and Managing Director, Orissa State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Surendra Kumar Mohapatra 1987 ACJ 480. So far as quantum is concerned, it is submitted that enough materials were brought on record before the Commissioner on careful consideration and analysis of which he has fixed the quantum and no interference has rightly been made by the learned Single Judge.