Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1046 (PAT)

Oriental Insurance Company v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-10

ABHIJIT SINHA, NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.12.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12373 of 2001. Matter relates to payment of the amount covered by an Insurance Policy. The claimant is widow of one Hare Ram Sah, Police constable who was killed by criminals sometime in 1993. From the order impugned it appears. that of the policy even after its expiry on 28.2.1993 was renewed on 22.4.1993 for the period up to 21.4.1994. The Court held that during the pendency of the policy husband of that writ petitioner was killed and, therefore the claimant was liable to get the Insurance amount covered by the policy. The Court further held that the claim in regard to the death of Hare Ram Sah was sent to the Insurance Company on 5.9.1994 within less than one month of the period intimated in the Insurance Letter which finally was rejected by the Company on 13.9.2000 after expiry of six years of the receipt of the claim/informant. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the intimation/information is said to have been intimated by the Superintendent of Police who is said to be the agent of the Insurance Company but, in fact, the Insurance Company had no such agent. It is further contended that the intimation was received in the Insurance Companys Office on 30th September, 2000 and no claim was raised by the claimant within the statutory period of one month after the death. 4. From the order impugned it does not appear to be the case of the Insurance Company that the information in fact was received about the death of the husband of the claimant on 30th September, 2000, rather it is manifest that the same was sent to the Insurance Company on 5.9.1994. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in this view of the matter appears to be based on material on record. 5. In view of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge we do not find any justification to interfere with the same. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.