Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1034 (PNJ)

Suresh v. State of Haryana

2008-05-14

M.M.KUMAR, SABINA

body2008
JUDGMENT Sabina, J.:- The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 16.6.2006 and 3.10.2006 (Annexures P-5 and P-6 respectively), vide which her claim has illegally been rejected. It has further been prayed to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the amount of compensation to the petitioner under Devi Rakshak Scheme (Chaudhary Devi Lal Jan Suraksha Beema Scheme) 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. 2. Husband of the petitioner namely Satish Kumar was the sole bread earner of the family and was working as agriculture labour. He died due to electrocution on 8.7.2005. A report was lodged in the Police Post Nahar, District Rewari in that regard. The petitioner approached the-respondents for grant of compensation. Case of the petitioner was forwarded by respondent No.4 to Tehsildar Kosli, who was directed to submit a detailed enquiry report and he submitted the same on 10.1.2006 (Annexure P-3). Respondent No.4 recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of compensation vide letter dated 16.2.2006 (Annexure P-4). Respondent No.5, however, rejected the claim of the petitioner vide letter dated 16.6.2006 (Annexure P-5). Representation submitted by the petitioner was declined vide order dated 3.10.2006 (Annexure P-6). 3. 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 26.10.2005. 4. Respondent No.4 in his written statement admitted the contentions in the writ petition. It was averred that respondent No.4 had conducted the enquiry and had recommended the case for payment of compensation as per the terms of the policy. 4. Respondent No.4 in his written statement admitted the contentions in the writ petition. It was averred that respondent No.4 had conducted the enquiry and had recommended the case for payment of compensation as per the terms of the policy. Respondent No.5 in its written statement averred that as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Annexure P-7) Assurance Company was to pay an amount of Rs.1 lac to the family members of the deceased, who died on account of an accident and was head of the family being sole bread earner. The petitioner produced a copy of the ration card (Annexure P-10) which was not reliable. Although the ration card showed the deceased Satish Kumar to be the head of family but in the details of the family members, the relationship of the deceased with the head of family was mentioned as ‘son’. The name of Sheo Taj was mentioned as head of family from 1998 to 2005 but his (Satish Kumar) name was not shown, later on. Satish Kumar died on 8.7.2005. 5. In replication to the written statement filed by respondent No.5, it was averred by the petitioner that the name of Sheo Taj was mentioned in the old ration card but since he died on 2.11.2001, his name was not mentioned in the new ration card. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Annexures P-7 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 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 P-7). As per Annexure P-7 if there are 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 P-7). As per Annexure P-7 if there are more than one bread earners in a family then only one bread earner would be covered under the scheme. In the ration card (Annexure P-10) name of Satish Kumar is mentioned and his age is given as 23 years. The mother of the deceased Satish Kumar has been shown as head of the family. The other members are wife and children of the deceased-Satish Kumar. As per the averments made in the replication, father of the deceased Satish had died on 2.11.2001. The petitioner was entitled to receive the amount of compensation on account of death of her husband due to electrocution. The Assurance Company vide letter dated 16.6.2006 (Annexure P-5) informed the petitioner that her claim was not maintainable as per the terms and conditions of the policy (Annexure P-7). Assurance Company in reply to the notice sent by the petitioner through her counsel said that Satish Kumar was not the head of the family and this fact was not in accordance with the terms of the policy. 8. The ground put forth by the Assurance company for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, that since Satish Kumar was not receive the amount of compensation, is baseless. As per the policy a bread earner in a family is covered under the scheme. It has also been clarified in MOU (Annexure P-7) that in case there are more than one bread earners in a family then only one bread earner would be covered under the scheme. Hence the plea taken up by the Assurance Company that only a head of the family was covered under the scheme is without any basis. The only thing required to be ascertained by the Assurance Company was as to whether the deceased was bread earner of the family or not. The interpretation of the scheme developed by the Assurance Company would negate the social and beneficial purpose of the scheme. As per the report of Tehsildar Kosli dated 10.1.2006 (Annexure P-3), Satish Kumar was bread earner of the family and had died due to electrocution. Satish Kumar had died 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. As per the report of Tehsildar Kosli dated 10.1.2006 (Annexure P-3), Satish Kumar was bread earner of the family and had died due to electrocution. Satish Kumar had died during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy. In these circumstances the claim of the petitioner was liable to be allowed as it was fully covered under the scheme. 9. Accordingly this petition is allowed. The impugned letters dated 16.6.2006 and 3.10.2006 (Annexures P-5 and P-6 respectively) are hereby quashed. Respondent No.5 is directed to release the amount of Rs.1 lac to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% from the date of rejection of her claim vide letter dated 16.6.2006 (Annexure P-5) till realisation. No order as to costs. ------------------