Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 985 (MP)

Vimlesh v. Divisional Manager, L. I. C. of India

2003-08-18

A.K.GOHIL

body2003
JUDGMENT The husband of the petitioner late Shri Virendra Prasad Dubey was an employee of Respondent No.2 Corporation. He died during the course of the employment. He was the member of the group insurance. The amount of the group insurance was payable by respondent No. I-Life Insurance Corporation. Respondent No.2-Corporation vide letter dated 8.11.1994 (Annexure P-l) requested Respondent No.1 to pay the amount of group insurance to the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Virendra Prasad Dubey. Alongwith this Annexure P-l Respondent No.2 also submitted guarantee statement form; death certificate; indemnity bond; and nomination form but uptil now the Corporation despite repeated notices have not released the amount of group insurance to the widow of the deceased employee. In reply after 7 years respondent No. 1-Corporation wrote a letter dated 22.2.2001 Annexure P-5 to respondent No.2-Corporation asking about some particulars about the Provident Fund number and also an indemnity bond on stamp paper with a certificate that they are not claiming any double claim. Then again on 20.1.2003 by Annexure R-2 respondent No. 2 - Corporation wrote a letter to respondent No. 1 specifying therein that a writ petition is pending; deceased Virendra Prasad Dubey was working on the post of Cashier and his name is included in the group scheme. On this letter the Manager of respondent No.1-Corporation made an endorsement that the matter is being examined and they will furnish information in eight days but uptil now they have not furnished the same. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that despite letter Annexure P-l by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 on 8.11.1994 after the lapse of nine years respondent No.1 has not paid the amount of group Insurance. The submission of Shri Zelawat, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is that they are also repeatedly writing to respondent No. 1-Life Insurance Corporation for the payment and they have already made the compliance of all the requirements well in time. Shri Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No. 2-Corporation-Employer has not produced the indemnity form as required. In reply the submission of Shri Zelawat is that they have already submitted indemnity bond in 1994, therefore, there is no necessity of submitting any fresh indemnity form. Shri Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No. 2-Corporation-Employer has not produced the indemnity form as required. In reply the submission of Shri Zelawat is that they have already submitted indemnity bond in 1994, therefore, there is no necessity of submitting any fresh indemnity form. Shri Mehta has not produced any policy documents or the terms and conditions for disbursment of the aforesaid amount of group insurance according to which indemnity bond is necessary to be submitted by respondent No.2-Corporation-Employer, before disbursing the amount of group Insurance. I have perused the pleadings and d6cuments produced by learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1-Life Insurance Corporation has not denied the enforcement of the group scheme and its application on' the employees of respondent No.2-Corporation. They simply submitted that by Annexure P-5 some formalities were not completed and, therefore, the amount could not be released. I have also perused the reply Wed on behalf of respondent No. 1-Life Insurance Corporation. It has not been mentioned that why the indemnity bond is necessary for releasing the said amount. Under the group insurance scheme employee is entitled for a claim. It is very unusual on the part of respondent No. 1-Life Insurance Corporation not settling the claim of the employees those who are covered by group insurance scheme continuously for 8 years. The claim was referred by Annexure P-l to the respondent No. 1-Life Insurance Corporation on 8.11.1994. More than eight years have lapsed. In reply respondent No.1 has also not raised any serious objection regarding the entitlement of the petitioner about the benefits of group scheme. In the result, this petition is allowed. It is directed that respondent No. -Life Insurance Corporation shall pay the amount of group insurance scheme to the petitioner positively within a period of 30 days from today by a cross Demand Draft alongwith interest on the same from the date 8.11.1994 at the rate of Rs. 12% p.a. The respondent-Life Insurance Corporation shall also pay a cost of Rs. 10,000=00 to the petitioner towards mental agony suffered by the widow of the deceased employee continuously for 8 years. It is made clear that if the amount sham not be paid in 30 days positively from the date of the communication of this order, the petitioner shall be entitled for penal interests @ 18% p.a. from 8.11.1994.