Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1030 (PNJ)

Santro v. State Of Haryana

2008-05-14

M.M.KUMAR, SABINA

body2008
Judgment Sabina, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. One lac as personal accident claim under Chaudhary Devi Lal Jan Suraksha Bima Yojna (Devi Rakshak Policy) (Annexure P-1). 2. The case of the petitioner, as stated in the writ petition, in brief, is that a scheme known as Devi Rakshak Scheme (Chaudhary Devi Lal Jan Suraksha Beema Scheme) (hereinafter referred to as the scheme) was being run by respondent No. 1. As per this scheme one member of each family in the State of Haryana, who earned livelihood for the family and was between the age of 18 to 80 years, was insured. In the event of his death or permanent disability as a result of accident, specified in the scheme, entitled the dependents for payment of compensation by the insurance company. 3. Husband of the petitioner namely Zile Singh died in road side accident on 11.9.2005. His Death certificate is attached as Annexure P-2. He was the sole bread earner of the family but no compensation had been paid to the petitioner by the respondents so far. The petitioner has four minor children to maintain. Copy of the ration card is annexed as Annexure P-3. The petitioner had approached respondent No. 4 and had filled up the necessary form on 3.3.2006 but till date no action has been taken on her application. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 4 in their written statement averred that the State of Haryana made a payment of Rs. 6 crore to the New India Assurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the Assurance Company) in lump sum to insure all the families of the State of Haryana subject to certain conditions, who were covered under Group Insurance Scheme for one year i.e. from 27.10.2004 to 26.10.2005. It has further been averred that the petitioner was entitled for grant of compensation. Respondents No. 2 and 3 in their written statement averred that the policy was effective from of 27.10.2004 to. 26.10.2005. Zile Singh had died oh 11.9.2005, whereas intimation in this regard was sent to the Assurance Company for the first time on 4.3.2006 after expiry of the policy. The claim was repudiated vide letter dated 17.4.2006 (Annexure R2/2). After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that the instant perdition deserves to be allowed. 26.10.2005. Zile Singh had died oh 11.9.2005, whereas intimation in this regard was sent to the Assurance Company for the first time on 4.3.2006 after expiry of the policy. The claim was repudiated vide letter dated 17.4.2006 (Annexure R2/2). After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that the instant perdition deserves to be allowed. 5. Annexures R-2/3 is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed on 25.10.2004 between the Government of Haryana and the Assurance Company. As per the same, the scheme was decided to be confined to all the bread earners of all the families in the State of Haryana, whose name appeared in the voter lists of the State of Haryana or ration card issued by the concerned department of Haryana except Government employees and income tax payees. It was further clarified in the scheme that if there were more than one bread earners in a family, then only one bread earner would be covered under the scheme. The insurance was available to the persons between the age of 18 to 80 years. The word Head of the Family does not appear in the MOU (Annexure R2/3). As per Annexure R2/3 if there are more than one bread earners in a family then only one bread earner would be covered under the scheme. Annexure P-3 is the ration card wherein deceased-Zile Singh son of Bhartu is described as head of the family. The other members are the wife and children of the deceased. The Assurance Company vide letter dated 17.4.2006 (Annexure R2/2) repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground that it was not maintainable as per the terms and conditions of the policy. No reasons have been mentioned in Annexure R2/2 as to why the claim filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. In the written statement filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 it has been averred that the claim furnished by the petitioner had been declined as it had been filed after the expiry of the policy. 6. The ground put forth by the Assurance company for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, that since the information regarding the claim was given at a belated stage, is baseless and misconceived. As per the policy a bread earner in a family, who died in an accident, is covered under the scheme. 6. The ground put forth by the Assurance company for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, that since the information regarding the claim was given at a belated stage, is baseless and misconceived. As per the policy a bread earner in a family, who died in an accident, is covered under the scheme. Husband of the petitioner had died on 11.9.2005 during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy which was effective for the period from 27.10.2004 to. 26.10.2005. The petitioner, being widow, must have been in a shock and could not have immediately rushed to the Assurance Company seeking claim as per policy, especially when she was also supporting her four minor children. The petitioner approached the Assurance Company in March 2006 seeking the claim. The said claim could not be rejected merely on the ground that the claim had been furnished after the policy had expired. Because the cause of action had arisen to the petitioner to seek her claim during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the interpretation of the scheme developed by the Assurance Company would negate the social and beneficial purpose of the scheme. In these circumstances the claim of the petitioner deserves to be allowed as it is fully covered under the scheme. 7. Accordingly this petition is allowed. Respondents No. 2, and 3 are directed to release the amount of Rs. 1 lac to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing application by the petitioner till realisation. No order as to costs.