N. Prusty, J.
1. Since M.A.C.A. No. 429 of 2003 and W.P. (C) No. 3079 of 2004 arise out of a common award, both the matters are taken up together.
2. The petitioner Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which was opposite party No. 2 in M.A.C.T. Misc. Case Nos. 133/777 of 1992/1990 on the file of the Fourth M.A.C.T., Puri, has filed W.P. (C) No. 3079 of 2004 challenging the judgment dated 2.5.2003 passed in the said case awarding a sum of Rs. 8,000 in favour of claimant-opposite party No. 1 on the ground that since the insurance policy issued in favour of the owner of the vehicle, namely, Man Bhusan Dora was cancelled due to dishonour of cheque submitted by the owner for issuance of policy and such cancellation of policy was intimated to the owner of the vehicle by the insurance company as well as the Regional Transport Officer, Puri, where the vehicle was registered, much prior to the date of accident, the petitioner insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and to pay the amount of compensation to claimant. As such, the award passed by learned Tribunal directing opposite party No. 2-present petitioner to pay the amount awarded to the claimant is bad in the eyes of law, keeping in view the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Daddappa v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. : 2008 ACJ 581 (SC).
3. The claimant Babaji Rout has also filed an appeal, i.e., M.A.C.A. No. 429 of 2003 challenging the selfsame award dated 2.5.2003 on the ground that since the claimant has sustained four injuries in course of the accident, out of which one injury (injury No. 4) is grievous in nature, the award of Rs. 8,000 as compensation in his favour, is inordinately low and has to be enhanced in the interest of justice.
4. Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition and for respondent No. 2 in the appeal and Mr. N. Mishra, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1 in writ petition and for the appellant in the appeal.
5. The case of claimant-opposite party No. 1 in the writ petition in short is that while he was standing on the public road near Atharanala Petrol Pump on 24.6.1990 at about 11 p.m. the offending bus bearing registration No. ORP 377 came from Bhubaneswar side with high speed and dashed against him, while overtaking a bullock cart. This accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the above said bus for which the claimant sustained multiple injuries, out of which one is grievous in nature. Hence, the claimant filed M.A.C.T. Misc. Case No. 777 of 1990 before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the injuries sustained by him in the above said motor vehicle accident.
6. The petitioner/insurance company filed its written statement denying all the allegations made in the claim petition. However, the owner of the vehicle, who was opposite party No. 1 before learned Tribunal, did not file any written version. As such he was set ex parte.
7. In support of his case the claimant-appellant in M.A.C.A. No. 429 of 2003 and opposite party No. 1 in the writ petition examined two witnesses and exhibited certain documents, i.e., Exhs. 1 to 6. However, the insurance company which is the petitioner in the writ petition and respondent No. 2 in the appeal did not bother to examine any witness but exhibited certain documents in support of its contentions made in the written statement, i.e., Exhs. A to J.
7. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner/insurance company submits that a policy was issued by the petitioner in the name of the owner as against his vehicle bearing registration No. ORP 377. The owner of the vehicle-opposite party No. 2 deposited the premium amount by way of a cheque and the said cheque could not be encashed/dishonoured as because there was no sufficient fund in his account. As such, the insurance policy issued in favour of the owner of the vehicle in respect of the bus No. ORP 377 was cancelled due to non-collection/non-payment of the premium amount. Immediately after such cancellation, both the owner of the vehicle as well as the regional transport officer, where the vehicle was registered, were intimated with regard to cancellation of the policy due to dishonour of cheque much prior to the date of the accident. As such, since the cheque was dishonoured by the bank due to non-availability of sufficient fund in the account of opposite party No. 1 and accordingly the policy was cancelled due to non-payment of the premium amount, the insurance company is not liable in any manner to pay the compensation amount indemnifying the owner of the vehicle. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Daddappa v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. : 2008 ACJ 581 (SC), wherein it has been held that:
(26) We are not oblivious of the distinction between the statutory liability of the insurance company vis-a-vis a third party in the context of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act and its liabilities in other cases. But the same liabilities arising under a contract of insurance would have to be met if the contract is valid. If the contract of insurance has been cancelled and all concerned have been intimated thereabout, we are of the opinion, the insurance company would not be liable to satisfy the claim.
(27) A beneficial legislation as is well-known should not be construed in such a manner so as to bring within its ambit a benefit which was not contemplated by the legislature to be given to the party. In Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Trichur v. Ramanuja Match Industries : AIR 1985 SC 278, this Court held:
We do not doubt that beneficial legislation should have liberal construction with a view to implementing the legislative intent but where such beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own there is no warrant for the court to travel beyond the scheme and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered by the scheme.'
We, therefore, agree with the opinion of the High Court.
(28) However, as the appellant hails from the lowest strata of society, we are of the opinion that in a case of this nature, we should, in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, direct the respondent No. 1 to pay the amount of claim to the appellants herein and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, viz., respondent No. 2, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him. We direct accordingly.
9. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant submits that since the injured-claimant sustained multiple injuries on his body in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus bearing registration No. ORP 377 and out of those injuries, one of the injuries was grievous in nature as well as the claimant sustained a fracture wound, the amount of compensation of Rs. 8,000 as has been awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and as such the same has to be enhanced. Learned Counsel further submits that since the decision of the Supreme Court which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition passed at a later stage than the date of accident and disposal of the claim application, the ratio which has been laid down by the court in that decision may not be applicable in the instant case. However, even if the ratio of the decision relied upon by Mr. Dutta is applicable to the instant case, by exercise of its inherent power, this Court can also direct the insurer of the vehicle to pay the amount of compensation as has been finally directed by the Supreme Court and thereafter giving liberty to the insurance company to realize the same from the owner of the vehicle by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal.
10. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that once the Supreme Court decides a case of similar nature, the ratio of such decision becomes the law of the land. Even though the claim application was filed and award was passed by the learned Tribunal much prior of the date of such decision, since the appeal/writ petition was pending before this Court much after the judgment was delivered by the Apex Court, the cause of action has to be treated as a continuing one and the issue of the case remains open for consideration for all practical purposes. Once the issue remains open, the ratio of the decision, which comes during the intervening period, shall be applicable to the pending cases also. It need not be reiterated that appeal or writ petition once filed challenging an award, it has to be treated as continuation of the original claim case. As such, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court shall be applicable to the pending cases also. Even if such decision comes at the stage of appeal.
11. So far as the compensation amount is concerned, in view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the amount of Rs. 8,000 awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation is on the lower side and applying the principles of Lok Adalat, it would be appropriate to enhance the compensation from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 10,000 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum as has been awarded by the Tribunal. However, this Court cannot direct the petitioner insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant-opposite party No. 1 as has been directed by the Apex Court in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, since such extraordinary power has not been conferred on this Court by the Constitution of India.
12. In view of the above, the owner of the vehicle-opposite party No. 2 in the writ petition and respondent No. 1 in the appeal, is directed to pay Rs. 10,000 towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 29.8.1990 till the date of realization within a period of four months hence. It is made clear that in case owner of the vehicle-opposite party No. 2 in the writ petition fails to pay the amount within the above stipulated period, the claimant-opposite party No. 1, if so advised, shall be at liberty to move the Tribunal for realization of the compensation amount along with up-to-date interest accrued thereon by initiation of appropriate proceeding against him under the O.P.D.R. Act.
13. Both the writ petition as well as the appeal are disposed of accordingly.
14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.