1 2026:CGHC:16739 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 430 of 2026 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited D.O.-3, Nearby Prakash Swing Pool, Pachpedi Naka, Police Station Tikarapara, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Through Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Office At Lic Building, Magar Para Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration Number CG- 23/E-1463) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Lalji Sahu, Resident of Village Devpuri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 2 - Tomeshwar Lal Sahu S/o Shri Jhadu Ram Sahu, R/o House No. 1245, Nawadeeh, Ward No. 15, Village Patharra, Rajim, P.S. Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh (Owner). ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 10.04. 202 6 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner for Employee Compensation, Labour Court No.2- Raipur (in short, the Commissioner), passed in INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.04.13 18:38:44 +0530 2 Execution Case No.06/EC Act/2024 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.5,32,382/- along with interest @ 10 percent per annum which comes to Rs.3,01,683/- within one month from the date of order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was the non applicant No.2 before the Commissioner in case No.13/EC Act/2018/Non Fatal which was decided on 12.10.2023 whereby the Commissioner had directed the petitioner/non applicant No.2 to deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.5,32,382/- within one month from the date of judgment. If non applicant No.2 fails to deposit the said amount within stipulated time period, it will carry interest @ 10 percent per annum. He would further submit that the petitioner received certified copy of the judgment on 19.10.2023 and after having various process for preparation of cheque, the said cheque was prepared on 14.11.2023 and deposited before the Commissioner on 18.11.2023. Since the certified copy of impugned judgment was obtained by the petitioner after about a week, the said time period may be extended and the petitioner may be exempted from payment of interest over the principal amount. He would further submit that though the petitioner has deposited the principal amount on 18.11.2023, yet the Commissioner has directed to deposit the amount of Rs.3,01,683/- as interest accrued on principal amount as they failed to deposit the amount of compensation within stipulated time frame. Due to non availability of certified copy of impugned order, the amount could not be deposited within one month from the date of judgment, but immediately after one month i.e. on 18.11.2023 the petitioner deposited 3 the amount of compensation. Therefore, imposition of interest upon the principal amount would amount to charging the petitioner for a huge monetary loss and also loss of public money. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and petition be allowed. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 4. From perusal of impugned judgment dated 12.10.2023 it transpires that there is specific direction to non applicant No.2/insurance company that he should deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.5,32,382/- within one month from the date of judgment before the court. If non applicant No.2 fails to deposit the same within stipulated time frame, it will carry interest @ 10 percent per annum which is operative from the date of accident till deposition of the amount. Admittedly the petitioner made application for certified copy of the judgment on 17.10.2023 which was delivered on 19.10.2023. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that due to official process the cheque could not be prepared within time and it could be prepared only on 14.11.2023 would not be the proper and plausible explanation in view of the fact that there was a specific direction by the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act that principal amount of Rs.5,32,382/- should be deposited within one month from the date of judgment. The execution of direction would not depend upon obtaining certified copy or official process of the petitioner/insurance company. When specific direction was made with respect to deposition of amount within stipulated time frame, it was duty of the petitioner/insurance company to deposit the same irrespective of obtaining certified copy or 4 official proceeding. The said condition that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of compensation within stipulated time frame, it shall carry interest @ 10 percent from the date of accident till its payment, have not been challenged by the petitioner before any higher forum. When there was a specific direction in the judgment dated 12.10.2023, the petitioner was required to comply with the said judgment and its consequences. It cannot simply say that due to official process the amount could not be deposited in time. 5. From perusal of impugned order, the Commissioner has rightly considered that there is no plausible explanation from the petitioner for not depositing the amount of compensation within stipulated time frame as has been directed by the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act. The direction made by the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act is strictly in accordance with paragraph 17 of the judgment dated 12.10.2023 passed in Case No.13/EC Act/2018. 6. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order impugned passed by the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder