Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 237 (PAT)

Madan Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-02

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2007
Judgment 1. Petitioner is son of Late Bindeshwari Singh, a deceased employee of the State Government. Father of the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School, Dawat in the district of Rohtas at Sasaram. He was assigned a duty to conduct Panchayat election Sanjhauliya block. He met with an accident on 20.4.2001 while returning from Sanjhauliya after the election. An insurance policy was taken by the State Government from the Oriental Insurance Company for insurance of all such Government employees who were appointed for conducting election. Death of petitioners father on election duty has not been controverted by the State. Though Insurance Company has raised objection in this regard. 2. Counsel appearing for Insurance Company has stated that since the election was held on 19.4.2001 and at 8.30 P.M. on the same day all papers relating to the election were already submitted by the petitioners father when election was over. Father of the petitioner met with an accident on the next date, when election duty has already been over on 19.4.2001. On 20.4.2001 when he met with an accident he was not on election duty, as such his duty is not covered under the policy of the State Government, the reliance has been placed on a decision in the case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and Another vs. Francis De Costa and Anr. (A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 432) wherein the word in course of employment has been considered and defined in case of workmen under the Workmen Compensation Act. The word "in course of employment" has been held only till the time the employee starts from his residence for discharging his duty till end his duty. So far the returning from the work is concerned it has not been considered to be covered under Sec.2(8) of the Workmen Compensation Act, as defined "in the course of employment". 3. I find that this decision has no relevance in the present case as the father of the petitioner was not a workman. He was State Government employee and sent on election duty by the State Government. The period of insurance was as per the policy decision from 9.4.2001 to 8.5.2001. In between this period only purpose for which the father of the petitioner had gone to Sanjhaulia for conducting election. The time which is taken in transit will also be considered as a period in course of his election duty. The period of insurance was as per the policy decision from 9.4.2001 to 8.5.2001. In between this period only purpose for which the father of the petitioner had gone to Sanjhaulia for conducting election. The time which is taken in transit will also be considered as a period in course of his election duty. Accordingly the ground which has been taken by the insurance company for rejecting the insurance claim of the petitioners father is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is duly covered under the insurance policy. Father of the petitioner was on election duty and he met with an accident and lost his life as such he is entitled for claim amount of rupees ten lacs as mentioned in the insurance policy. 4. Another objection which has been raised by the counsel appearing for the insurance is that claim papers were submitted by the State much after expiry of the period of limitation. After eight months of the death of the petitioners father the claim papers were submitted, after expiry of the period for submission of claim under the policy. The Insurance Company is not responsible to make payment of claim to the petitioner for this reason as well. It has also been submitted that this policy was in between the State and the Insurance Company. So far the State employees are concerned they were the beneficiary as the premium was paid by the State Government. The State Government has failed in its duty in submitting the claim paper within the time as such the liability to pay insurance amount has been shifted from the Insurance Company to the State Government. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State is silent on the point of delay. Nowhere it has been stated that what was the reason for not submitting the claim papers of the petitioners father well within the time. Only because of this delay on the part of the State, the petitioner has to move before this court twice for receiving his genuine claim as the petitioners father lost his life in harness on election duty. Situation in which the father of the petitioner lost his life, claim for insurance amount cannot be denied. Petitioner is entitled for Rs. Ten lacs insurance amount and it has to be paid to the petitioner. 6. Situation in which the father of the petitioner lost his life, claim for insurance amount cannot be denied. Petitioner is entitled for Rs. Ten lacs insurance amount and it has to be paid to the petitioner. 6. Now the question arises who should be held responsible for making this payment. Considering the fact that insurance policy do not disclose within what period the claim papers should be submitted, and simultaneously there being laches on the part of the State in submitting the claim papers, in order to meet this situation the liability for making payment of rupees ten lacs insurance amount should be distributed fifty-fifty on both i.e. the State Government and the Insurance Company. Accordingly the State as well as the Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs. five lacs to the petitioner. Counsel for the State as well as Insurance Company will produce cheque of Rs. 5 lakhs payable to the petitioner. The cheque/draft should be produced in court which will be paid to the petitioner. 7. Let this matter be listed on 2.3.2007 within 1st five cases. On that date the counsel for the State as well as the counsel appearing for the Insurance Company will come with cheque/draft of Rs. five lacs each, which will be handed over to the petitioner in court. Counsel for the petitioner is also directed to inform the petitioner to remain present in court on that date. 8. Let a copy of this order be handed over the counsel for the State Mr. Harishankar Rai J.C. to A.A.G. II and Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.