Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 912 (ALL)

Sharda Devi v. State of U. P.

2005-05-09

R.N.MISRA, V.M.SAHAI

body2005
JUDGMENT : V.M. Sahai and R.N. Misra, JJ. By way of this writ petition, the Petitioner has claimed amount of insurance alongwith interest. 2. We have heard Sri Kamal Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Nikhil Kumar for Respondent No. 4. 3. The Petitioner's husband Darshan Yadav was a small farmer and sole earning member of the family. His age was about 55 years. On 27.9.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. when he was irrigating his agricultural field was murdered. The F.I.R. Annexure-3 to the writ petition was lodged at the police station. According to G.O. No. 1751/1.9.2004-962 LC/2004 dated 20.8.2004, the General Insurance Scheme was launched by the U. P. Government for small farmers, whose age was more than 12 years and not more than 70 years. The scheme was effected from 5 p.m. of 16.9.2004 to 4.59 p.m. of 16.9.2004. Some clarification was also given through G.O. No. 2032/1.9.2004-962 LC/2004 dated 5.10.2004. Copy is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In view of said G.O., Petitioner, the wife of deceased Darshan Yadav filed claim for insurance amount of Rs. 1 lac only on 6.10.2004 before District Magistrate, Mau through Lekhpal concerned. It appears that some delay was caused in processing her application from the office of District Magistrate, Mau and the application was forwarded to the insurance company, the Respondent No. 4 a bit late and on the same ground, the Respondent No. 4 rejected the claim of Petitioner hence this petition. 4. The copy of rejection order is Annexure C.A.-2 with the affidavit dated 4.2.2007 filed by Sri Pratyush Kumar, Manager (Legal) of Respondent No. 4. This order shows that merely on the ground of limitation, claim of Petitioner was rejected. The authorities concerned did not examine merit of the case. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 has also taken same plea of limitation in the counter affidavit justifying rejection of claim of Petitioner. He has also taken an alternative plea that the writ petition is not maintainable and alternative remedy of the Petitioner lies in filing a complaint before District Consumer Forum or civil suit before civil court concerned. 5. Annexure-1 is the photo copy of extract of khatauni 1410-1415 fasli which shows that the deceased was a small farmer. He has also taken an alternative plea that the writ petition is not maintainable and alternative remedy of the Petitioner lies in filing a complaint before District Consumer Forum or civil suit before civil court concerned. 5. Annexure-1 is the photo copy of extract of khatauni 1410-1415 fasli which shows that the deceased was a small farmer. Annexure-2 is the copy of kutumb register of village Bhela Bandh, Tehsil Sadar, district Mau, which shows that the deceased was born in 1950. Thus, at the time of death, his age was much less than 70 years. Annexure-5 is the copy of application moved by the Petitioner to District Magistrate, Mau dated 6.10.2004 putting her claim for insurance amount of Rs. 1 lac only vide G.O. referred to earlier. These facts show that the deceased was very well covered under the insurance scheme and the application was moved well within time by the Petitioner completing all formalities. 6. No doubt claim of the Petitioner was forwarded by District Magistrate after 142 days of its presentation but there was no fault on the part of Petitioner. This fact has not been controverted by the Respondents as alleged by the Petitioner that she had filed his claim on 6.10.2004 before District Magistrate, Mau claiming insurance amount of her husband who was murdered on 27.9.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. The scheme of insurance was effective since 16.9.2004. Thus, it is clear that within ten days, the Petitioner moved application to the District Magistrate concerned claiming insurance amount, whereas according to G.O. dated 20.8.2004 referred to earlier, she was expected to file her application within 15 days. Thus, her application was well within time. If any delay was caused by district authorities in forwarding her application to the insurance company, she was not at fault. The scheme for general insurance of small farmers was launched by the U.P. Government for the welfare of poor people. This was public welfare scheme, therefore, claim of victim who was aggrieved person could not be thrown out merely on the ground of laches on the part of Government officials. The insurance company has to pay claim of Petitioner who comes within the ambit of insurance plan. This was public welfare scheme, therefore, claim of victim who was aggrieved person could not be thrown out merely on the ground of laches on the part of Government officials. The insurance company has to pay claim of Petitioner who comes within the ambit of insurance plan. If there was any delay on the part of Government officials, in the worst case, the insurance company could claim refund of money from the Government particularly from the Government officials, who were responsible for delay. 7. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 has filed Annexure C.A.-1, the photo copy of Insurance Policy. As we have discussed earlier, the claim of Petitioner has been rejected only on the ground of limitation. The merit of the case was not examined by the insurance company. The Clause 4 of the insurance policy is material for the purposes of this case which is quoted below: 4. Limitation period.-In no case whatsoever shall the company be liable for any claim of any nature if the intimation of the claim is not given within 30 days of the arising of the claim. In no case whatsoever shall the company be liable for any claim of any nature after the expiry of 12 months from the happening of the loss or damage, unless the claim is the subject of pending action or arbitration, it being expressly agreed and declared that if the company shall disclaim liability for any claim hereunder and such claim shall not within 12 calendar months from the date of disclaimer have been made the subject-matter of a suit in court of law then the claim for all such purposes be deemed to have been abandoned and shall not thereafter be recoverable hereunder. 8. The above Clause 4 shows that maximum period of 12 months has been given for making claim of insurance money unless claim is pending before any other forum or arbitration. In the present case before us, the Petitioner had not claimed insurance amount before any authority concerned except in the present case. By virtue of aforesaid Clause 4 of Insurance Policy, the claim of Petitioner should have been considered on merits which had been received in the office of Respondent No. 4 within 12 months of the occurrence. 9. In the present case before us, the Petitioner had not claimed insurance amount before any authority concerned except in the present case. By virtue of aforesaid Clause 4 of Insurance Policy, the claim of Petitioner should have been considered on merits which had been received in the office of Respondent No. 4 within 12 months of the occurrence. 9. There was sufficient explanation for the delay because the Petitioner had made her claim within time allowed by the insurance policy and she was not at fault. The delay was caused by the district officials. Thus, it is clear that the claim of Petitioner is genuine one and she is entitled for insurance amount under the scheme. She has also claimed interest. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 has contended that there was no provision for interest in the insurance policy but we do not see any force in this contention. In the case of Jag Mohan Pandey Vs. U.P. Co-operative Tribunal and Others, (2004) 1 AWC 440 and R.P. Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, 2004 (5) AWC 4318 , the Division Bench of this Court have repeatedly held that if there is no specific prohibition regarding interest, in normal course, interest should be given on the amount due. The following material observation is quoted below: ... We may mention that we are passing direction for interest since interest is the normal accretion on capital.... Money doubles every six years (because of compound interest). Rs. 100 in the year 1990 would become Rs. 200 in the year 1996 and it will become Rs. 400 in the year 2002. Hence if A had to pay B a sum of Rs. 100 in the year 1990 and he pays that amount only in the year 2002, the result will be that A has pocketed Rs. 300 with himself. This clearly cannot be justified because had he paid that amount to B in the year 1990 B would be having Rs. 400 in the year 2002 instead of having only Rs. 100. Hence, ordinarily interest should always be awarded whenever any amount is detained by someone, otherwise the person receiving the amount after considerable delay would be losing the entire interest thereon which will be pocketed by the person who managed the delay. 400 in the year 2002 instead of having only Rs. 100. Hence, ordinarily interest should always be awarded whenever any amount is detained by someone, otherwise the person receiving the amount after considerable delay would be losing the entire interest thereon which will be pocketed by the person who managed the delay. It is for this reason that we have ordered for payment of interest alongwith the amount realized as license fee. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the Respondent No. 4 is directed to make payment of Rs. 1 lac (Rs.1,00,000 only) to the Petitioner towards insurance amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim, i.e., 6.10.2004 within a period of three months from today. Certified copy of this order be placed by the Petitioner before concerned authority of Respondent No. 4 within a week.