Orissa High Court
2.2021 These Matters Are Taken Up ... vs Mohanty on 1 February, 2021
W.P.( C.M.P.
FAONo.1360 of 2015
No.474 of 2005
F.A.O.Nos.474 & 473 of 2005
11 01.02.2021 These matters are taken up through Video conferencing.
Heard Sri Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the contesting
respondents in both the appeals.
F.A.O.No.474 of 2005 involves an award in favour of the
claimant in W.C. Case No.71 of 1986 decided in a batch of W.C.
Case Nos.71, 72 and 73 of 1986. For commonness in the dispute,
all these matters are decided together.
Sri Uegata, learned counsel representing the appellant
submitted that the appeal hinges on the decision of the
Commissioner for Workmen's' Compensation & Asst. Labour
Commissioner, Balasore on issue no.2. To advance his
submission, Sri Udgata, learned counsel for the appellant while
admitting that the cheque submitted by the owner for continuance
of policy involved, has been bounced for no sufficient money in
the account. In such situation, Sri Udgata, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that once the cheque got bounced, it
becomes the responsibility of the Insurance Company to intimate
the owner to regularize his account in the matter of renewal or
continuance of the insurance policy. In absence of any intimation,
the owner does not become liable. Sri Udgata, learned counsel
however, clearly submitted that the amount for which the cheque
was placed for continuance of policy had not been withdrawn from
the account concerned.
Contest is made on the premises that there is no
communication regarding bouncing of the cheque submitted by
owner to the Insurance Company and the owner does not
became liable.
Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company
taking this Court to the discussions in the compensation case
submitted that there is production of ample material to show that
-2-
not only the cheque was bounced but pursuant to the cheque
submitted by the owner getting bounced, the cover note involving
the vehicle has been cancelled. In this view of the matter, learned
counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award of
compensation.
Learned counsel appearing for the claimant taking this Court
to the discussions in the award involved, submitted that there
might be a fight between the Insurance Company and the owner
and the claimant shall not made to suffer, unfortunately for the
interim order of this Court, the claimant is yet to get the
compensation amount. Taking through the discussions in the
impugned judgment, learned counsel for the claimant taken
support of the judgment.
Considering the contentions of the parties and after going
through the impugned judgment, this Court finds the
Commissioner has rightly taken up the issue in consideration of
the dispute between the Insurance Company and the owner i.e.
on the "Coverage of the policy of vehicle and liability" Answering
issue no.2, this Court finds the Commissioner has clearly relied
on the materials produced by the opposite party no.2, the
Insurance Company therein that there is material disclosing
bouncing of the cheque. Further, there is also material discloses
that there is cancellation of the cover note for the bouncing of the
cheque by the Insurance Company. At this stage, this Court
looking to the discussions in the award and for the materials
support to the bouncing of the cheque as well as cancellation of
cover note, finds for the admission of the appellant that there has
been no deduction of the amount involved from the account of the
appellant against which the cheque was submitted and for the
submission of learned counsels for other parties, this Court finds
there is no scope for interfering with the impugned award.
-3-
Further, for the small amount involving the award, there is also no
scope for interfering in such award.
Sri Udgata, learned counsel for the appellant here submitted
that the appellant has not only deposited the awarded amount but
also has deposited the interest @ 12% on 30.4.2007. For the
delayed deposit of the compensation amount at least delay of
three and half years, this Court finds there is right deposit of
interest @ 12% by the appellant, this Court is accordingly not
inclined to entertain the claim of refund of a portion of interest
deposited by the owner.
The appeal stands dismissed. Amount of compensation
along with 12% interest deposited by the owner with interest
accrued on the deposit being made by the owner and for the
amount kept under fixed deposit by the Commissioner, all shall be
released in favour of the claimant within a period of fifteen days
from the date of production of a copy of this order.
For dismissing of F.A.O.No.474 of 2005, F.A.O.No.473 of
2005 since stands on same footing the same also stands
dismissed.
..................................
sks BISWANATH RATH,J
