Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 235 (HP)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v. RAM PIARI

2006-08-11

A.K.GOEL, NARINDER SINGH THAKUR, SAROJ SHARMA

body2006
ORDER Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral):- Appellant is aggrieved from the order dated 20.1.2006 in Consumer Complaint No. 85 of 2003, passed by the District Forum, Bilaspur, Camp at Ghumarwin. By means of impugned order appellant has been held liable for payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 7.6.2003 till its realisation besides cost of Rs.2,000/-. 2. Facts which are relevant for deciding this appeal are being briefly noted. Deceased was employed with respondent Nos. 2 to 4. H.P. State Electricity Board had issued instructions to all Chief Engineers of the Projects as far back as on 20.2.1996. It may be appropriate to mention that at that point of time under the heading coverage’s the policy was to cover (I) "death. This instruction is of dated 20.2.1996 from the Secretary H.P. SEB, Shimla-4 on the subject "INSTURCTION OF JANTA PERSONAL ACCIDENT INSRUANCE SCHEME TO THE DAILT WAGERS AND WORK CHARGE WORKERS OF HP. SEB." One of the clauses of these instructions was to the following effect:- "The total number of daily waged/work-charged workers in the Board is 7500 and the premium at the rate of Rs.45.75 per worker, per year will be paid to the Insurance Company in advance by the Board every year till the policy is in rogue and shall be recovered from the wages of each beneficiary immediately. For those workers who join the said scheme after its commencement, prorata premium would be paid on bimonthly (sic-monthly) review basis. A nominal advance shall be deposited as security for those workers who join after its commencement. The security after adjustment shall be refunded at the termination of the policy. Hence total amount of premium for the year w.e.f. 25.1.1996 comes to Rs.3,43,125/-+ Rs.1000/- = Rs.3,44,125/-. The amount of Rs. 10007- is towards security for those who join after commencement of the scheme. This security after adjustment shall be refunded at the termination of the policy. The Drawing limit for the said purpose for an amount of Rs.3,44,125/- is being released separately. The above amount may be got deposited with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., immediately through the Executive Engineer, Maintenance Division, H.P SEB, Shimla and the amount may be charged to the Head "Suspense Account" against the said Division in the 1st instance and recovered from the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officers immediately. The above amount may be got deposited with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., immediately through the Executive Engineer, Maintenance Division, H.P SEB, Shimla and the amount may be charged to the Head "Suspense Account" against the said Division in the 1st instance and recovered from the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officers immediately. The specimen copies of intimation of death etc. and claim form are enclosed herewith for ready reference. You are, therefore, requested to please take immediate necessary action under intimation to this office." 3.It was not disputed that the risk covered was enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- and the daily wagers/work charged employees of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were insured in this sum. 4. Between respondent No.1 on one side and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the other, it is not further disputed that Dila Ram husband of the respondent-complaint died on 22.5.2001 and death was natural. 5. In this back ground, Shri Ratish Sharma on behalf of the appellant submitted that in terms of the policy issued by his client its liability could arise only when the death is accidental due to some external injury found on the person. Therefore, according to him his death is this case being admittedly natural, as such in terms of policy and a decision of this Commission in Appeal No. 185/2000, dated 4.12.2003, Padma Devi Vs. Executive Engineer and another, appellant is not liable for payment of any amount, as such impugned order is liable to be set aside and his client exonerated of the liability. 6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submitted that when the death was natural, respondent No.1 was not entitled to any claim under the Janta Personal Accident Policy. He, however, fairly on the basis of record stated that a sum of Rs.166/- was deducted out of the salary of the deceased, husband of the respondent on 12.10.2000 vide voucher No.23 towards the premium. Thus on a question of fact, according to Sh. Ranjan amount of premium for covering the risk of deceased-husband of the respondent had been deducted and risk for one year was covered. 7. He, however, hastened to add even his clients are not liable in this is a case because of natural death and thus in no circumstances any liability can be fastened upon respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Ranjan amount of premium for covering the risk of deceased-husband of the respondent had been deducted and risk for one year was covered. 7. He, however, hastened to add even his clients are not liable in this is a case because of natural death and thus in no circumstances any liability can be fastened upon respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 8.After having examined the terms and conditions of the policy and keeping in view the decision of this Commission in the case of Smt. Padma Devi Versus Executive Engineer and Another, we are of the opinion that appellant is not liable for payment of any compensation. As such it stands exonerated, Mr. Sharma referred to No. of other decisions. We feel that there is no need to multiply those. 9. Now coming to the next contention as per submission made by Mr. Ranjan that his client is also not liable. In this behalf when a reference is made to at the coverage contained in the communication of Secretary, H.P. SEB, Shimla-4 addressed to the Chief Engineer (Projects), HP SEB dated 20.2.1996, it is clearly mentioned that the policy will cover "death". Faced with this situation, Shri Ranjan submitted that the coverage of death cannot be read out of the context on the subject. This plea has been raised simply to be rejected because nothing prevented the Board to have clarified that the risk covered will only be in case of accidental death in terms of the policy and in no other situation. 10. No other instructions to the contrary after those of 1996, copy whereof at page 45 onwards of the complaint filed, on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been produced. 11. At this juncture, Ranjan submitted that his client is not liable for any claim beyond what is made in compliant i.e. of Rs.1,00,000/-.As such, no amount beyond this sum be ordered to be paid by his client. This plea is again without substance, reason being that premium was deducted by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the month of October, 2000. Admittedly, when the risk covered was in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore submission of Mr. Ranjan to hold his client liable in the sum claimed in the complaint is also rejected. 12. No other point was urged. 2 to 4 in the month of October, 2000. Admittedly, when the risk covered was in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore submission of Mr. Ranjan to hold his client liable in the sum claimed in the complaint is also rejected. 12. No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion while allowing this appeal filed by the appellant it is held that it is only respondent Nos. 2 to 4 who are liable for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent No.1 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 27.6.2003 till the deposit/payment whichever is earlier. Order regarding cost of litigation passed by the District Forum below is up-held against respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Impugned order against the appellant is set aside. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith. Office shall supply copy o this order available to the parties free of cost as per rules.