Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1923 (RAJ)

Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-27

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-Sh. Jamnalal, husband of the petitioner, was in the employment of Government of Rajasthan as Lower Division Clerk in the Department of Education. Sh. Jamnalal died on 17.06.1999 as a consequence of an accident while travelling by a bus at Rajgarh Ghata in district Chittorgarh. Sh. Jamnalal, at the time of his death, was a member of Group Insurance Scheme introduced by the Government of Rajasthan on 01.05.1995. 2. The petitioner being widow of late Sh. Jamnalal submitted a claim under Group Insurance Scheme for compensation and for the money insured on death under it. The respondents vide communication dated 10.07.2001 (Annexure-4) communicated to the Principal, Government senior Secondary School, Bassi, District Chittorgarh that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any compensation as the husband of the petitioner was travelling in a condemn bus and that too on its roof Being aggrieved by the same the present petition is preferred praying for an appropriate writ or direction for respondent to allow the claim of the petitioner with interest. 3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents stating therein that the husband of the petitioner at the time of his death was travelling in an old bus, sitting on the roof of it and the bus met with an accident. The rules do not permit to travel in a bus by sitting at its roof , therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and also perused the Compulsory Group Insurance Scheme, 1995. The said scheme was introduced by the Government of Rajasthan for its employees on 01.05.1995. The object of the scheme is to provide social security to its employees and their wards in the event of death or disablement of the employee. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and also perused the Compulsory Group Insurance Scheme, 1995. The said scheme was introduced by the Government of Rajasthan for its employees on 01.05.1995. The object of the scheme is to provide social security to its employees and their wards in the event of death or disablement of the employee. The object of the scheme as mentioned in Clause-2 of the scheme is as under: “2- ;kstuk dk mÌs;lsokdky ds nkSjku jkT; ljdkj ds fdlh vf /kdkjh vFkok deZpkjh dh e`R;q dh nkk esa jkT; chek ;ks tuk ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds vU; izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr e`rd ds ifjokjtuksa dh lgk;rkFkZ lkekftd lqj{kk vkoj.k miyC/k gS ijUrq nq?kZVuk esa jkT; ljdkj ds fdlh vf /kdkjh vFkok deZpkjh dh e`R;q vFkok foks"kr% e`R;q ds vfrfjDr vU; kkjhfjd {kfr;kas ij lEcfU/kr deZpkjh vFkok mlds ifjokj tuksa dh lgk;rkFkZ dksbZ izko/kku miyC/k ugha g O;fDrxr nq?kZVuk chek ;ksa@deZpkfj;kas dh e`R;q vFkok FkkA lewtuk nq?kZVuk esa jkT; ljdkj ds vf /kdkfj;ks vU; {kfr;kas ij chek vkoj.k miyC/k djokus ds mÌs; ls izkjEHk dh xbZ gSA jkT; deZpkfj;kas ls rkRi;Z mu deZpkfj;kas ls gksok fu;e] 1951 ls kkflr gS fdUrq buesxk tks jktLFkku lsa odZpktZ deZpkjh Hkh kkfey ekus tkosaxsaA” 5. Clause-8 of the scheme provides certain conditions on basis of which compensation can be denied to the members of group insurance scheme. Clause-8 of the scheme provides certain conditions on basis of which compensation can be denied to the members of group insurance scheme. Clasue-8 of the scheme reads as under: Þ8- ikWfylh ds vUrxZr fuEufyf [kr fLFkfr;ksa esa gksus okyh {kfr;ksa ij ikWfylh ds ykHk ns; ugha gksaxs%& 1- vkRe {kfr] vkRe gR;k ;k vkRe gR;k dk iz;kl] ikxyiu vFkok fdlh jkT; deZpkjh }kjk ukhys nzO; ds iz;ksx esa gksus okyh {kfrA 2- fpfdRlk vFkok kY; fØ;k ds nkSjku gksus okyh {kfrA 3- ukfHkdh; fodhj.k vFkok ikjek.kfod vL=ksa ls gksus okyh {kfrA 4- ;q)] fonskh vkdze.k] fonsk k= qdsd`R;kas] x`g ;q)] nsknzksg vFkok jk"Vª fojks/kh xfrfof /k;ksa ls gksus okyh {kfr 5- xHkZ/kkj.k vFkok izlo ds dkj.k gksus okyh {kfrA 6- chfer O;fDr }kjk vkijkf /kd mÌs; ls fof /k }kjk fu/kkZfjr dkuwu dk mYya/ku djrs le; gqbZ {kfrA chek ikWfylh dh ,d o"kZ dh vof /k ds nkSjku ikWfylh ds vUrxrZ chfer ds lEcU/k eas ,d ls vf /kd nkoksa ds ekeyksa esa Hkqxrku chfer dks bl ikWfylh ds vUrxZr ns; vf /kdre Hkqxrku :i;s nks yk[k ls vf /kd ugha gksxk mnkgj.kkFkZ %& mijksDr chek ikWfylh dh fdlh vof /k ds nkSjku ;fn fdlh jkT; deZpkjh dks igys micU/k IV(3) ds vUrxZr ,d vka[k vFkok vU; vax dh {kfr ij ,d yk[k :i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gS rks ikWfylh dh mlh vof /k ds nkSjku deZpkjh dh e`R;q gks tkus dh nkk esa e`R;q gsrq izLrkfor jkf k esa ls mijksDr deZpkjh dks iwoZ esa Lohd`r jkf k de djds Hkqxrku fd;k tk;xkAÞ 6. No other provision except Clause-8 referred above exists in the Scheme on basis of which claim can be denied by the Government. 7. In the present case the husband of the petitioner died as a consequence of an accident which occurred on 17.06.1999. No condition mentioned in Clause 8 is applicable to the present controversy and as such there was no reason available with the respondents to deny compensation to the petitioner under the Compulsory Group Insurance Scheme, 1995. It is pertinent to note that the object of the scheme is mentioned in the Clause 2 is to provide social security to the wards of its employees in harshness. Such a benefit cannot be denied by the respondents by technical interpretation of the conditions referred in Clause 8. It is pertinent to note that the object of the scheme is mentioned in the Clause 2 is to provide social security to the wards of its employees in harshness. Such a benefit cannot be denied by the respondents by technical interpretation of the conditions referred in Clause 8. In the event the respondents are permitted to deny the compensation in present circumstances or for the reason beyond the conditions mentioned in Clause 8 of the Scheme then that shall be nothing but to perpetuate an act which is in contravention of the purpose of introducing the Group Insurance Scheme. 8. In view of it, whatever discussed above this writ petition deserves acceptance. The same, therefore, is allowed. The petitioner is hereby declared entitled for getting the claim demanded by her under the Scheme of 1995, as a consequence of death of her husband. The respondents are directed to make the payment of compensation claimed by the petitioner under the scheme of 1995 within a period of 45 days from today. The petitioner shall also be entitled for interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 10% per annum. 9. No order as to costs.