Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 838 (PAT)

Maya Devi v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-26

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is the widow of Late Umakant Thakur. He was working as a Branch Manager in Central Cooperative Bank, Areraj and was deputed for election duty in the year 2000 at Booth No. 243 within Tetaria Block. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband died during the course of election and, therefore, in terms of a policy which the Election Commission of India had taken from the respondent National Insurance Company Limited. She was entitled to claim of Rs. ten lacs as envisaged under the policy. It is her case that the claim raised against the respondents was endorsed and forwarded by the concerned district authorities but the same was not honoured by the Insurance Company. 3. The claim or the demand made on the respondent Insurance Company by the petitioner has been denied. They have filed their counter affidavit and taken a stand that they had repudiated the claim of the petitioner in the year 2000 itself. The grounds are also restated in the counter affidavit. The said decision was communicated to the Collector of West Champaran District also. Their stand is that the death of the husband of the petitioner was due to natural cause and the deceased did not sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external violent and visible moms (Emphasis mine). The cause for death of the late employee was brain haemorrhage/heart attack. 4. Respondents state that looking at the large scale violence which was a feature in elections at the given time, Election Commission of India entered into an agreement with National Insurance Company Limited. It was a personal accident insurance (individual policy) also known as Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy. Respondents have brought the said policy on record as Annexure-B in their counter affidavit. They said that the agreement entered into between the Election Commission of India and them resulted in the policy in question. They categorically state that the Insurance policy covers the risk of death if any person engaged with election work shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external violent and visible means. 5. Respondents further state that death of late employee was confirmed by the Doctors as heart attack. The supporting documents in this regard was forwarded by the Collector and received by the Company. 5. Respondents further state that death of late employee was confirmed by the Doctors as heart attack. The supporting documents in this regard was forwarded by the Collector and received by the Company. The Company also investigated the claim of the petitioner and the sum result of the said investigation which emerged from the surveyors report was that the deceased, Umakant Thakur had died due to natural cause and there was no sign of any external violent or visible means upon him due to an accident which caused his death. The Surveyors report which was submitted under Sec. 64(U)(M) of the Insurance Act confirms the present position. The Insurance Company, therefore, have taken a stand that in the given facts and circumstances they had no option but to repudiate the claim of the present petitioner. The policy and the clauses of the policy are very clear in this regard and according to them they are correct in repudiating the claim of the petitioner. They submit that the clauses of the policy are quite clear and categorical and, therefore, nothing more can be read into the same to bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of the policy. 6. Petitioner states that the policy is being given restricted interpretation by the respondents and in fact the policies should be read in such a manner that anybody and everybody related with election work and for the period for which the policy was in operation should be covered by the same. The case of the petitioner is that even if her husband died due to heart attack but since it was during the course of election work her claim was maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to my notice case of Jagmato Devi V/s. State of Bihar, 2007(1) PLJR 808 as well as the order dated 13.2.2007 passed in L.P.A. No. 537 of 2006 (Chief Electoral Officer. Bihar V/s. Jagmato Devi & Ors.). According to the petitioner even in the case of Jagmato Devi (supra) the Insurance Company had repudiated the claim on the ground that the death of her husband was not during election duty, but, however, the Courts held the same to be during the course of election duty and directed payment of the insurance amount. 7. According to the petitioner even in the case of Jagmato Devi (supra) the Insurance Company had repudiated the claim on the ground that the death of her husband was not during election duty, but, however, the Courts held the same to be during the course of election duty and directed payment of the insurance amount. 7. This Court, however, would like to record that in the case of Jagmato Devi it was not disputed that the husband of Jagmato Devi, a Police Officer during course of election duty but after the election duty was over was on way to Patna to communicate certain directions issued to him and it was during such journey to Patna that he was shot dead by certain criminals and even his revolver was snatched: In other words the death of husband of Jagmato Devi was caused by external injury and violence and. therefore, the Court held that the policy covered the came situation, and directed payment of the Insurance claim. Case of Jagmato Devi is clearly distinguishable from the present case and is of no help to the petitioner. In the present case there is no averment or evidence which will show that there was any physical violence or an accident, which caused the death of the husband of the petitioner. 8. Courts have a duty to interpret a contract in terms of the wordings of the contract. When the wordings of a contract is unambiguous, the same cannot be expanded or diminished by reading something more in the same. The golden rule of interpretation will have to be adopted to read a contract in its entirety, it is not for the Courts to expand the scope of the agreement entered into between the parties and allow benefits to one person or the other the liability of the Insurance Company has to be read in terms of what they had contracted with the concerned party and they cannot be compelled to honour a commitment beyond the terms of the policy however unpleasant the consequences may seem on the claimant. 9. Reading the clauses which are there contained in Annexure-B of the policy it is evident that the policy covers only such cases where a person insured sustains any bodily injury resulting solely or directly from accident caused by the external violent or visible means. 9. Reading the clauses which are there contained in Annexure-B of the policy it is evident that the policy covers only such cases where a person insured sustains any bodily injury resulting solely or directly from accident caused by the external violent or visible means. It does not cover any and every cause of death during the course of election. This being the position this Court does not find any illegality in the decision taken by the respondent Insurance Company in repudiating the claim of the petitioner. 10. This writ application accordingly stands dismissed as having no merit.