Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 745 (ALL)

SAVITRI DEVI. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2008-04-02

NARAYAN SHUKLA, PRADEEP KANT

body2008
JUDGMENT By the Court.—This writ petition challenges the action of the New India Insurance Company, rejecting the claim of the petitioner under the Farmers Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). 2. The petitioner claims that her husband died because of the snake bite. Para 3 of the Scheme provides that if a recorded tenure-holder/farmer dies because of any accident i.e. if the death takes place by accident of motor vehicles, tractor trolley or for any reason as given therein or by any other accident, his heir would be entitled to the sum prescribed under the scheme. The claim has to be lodged alongwith the documents prescribed for the purpose. The scheme says that the claim should be supported by the extract of Khatauni, post-mortem report/Panchnama and the Pariwar Register, which documents be submitted through the Lekhpal to the District Magistrate. The responsibility to furnish these documents lies upon the claimant, who claims the benefit. 3. In the instant case, the petitioner had lodged a claim through the Lekhpal to the District Magistrate saying that death of her husband has occurred because of the snake bite and therefore, she is entitled to the amount prescribed. Alongwith the said claim she has also filed Panchnama confirming the aforesaid fact. The claim of the petitioner was recommended by the Tehsildar which was further recommended by the C.E.O. and has been forwarded by the District Magistrate to the Company. The Company however refused the claim on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the post-mortem report. The opportunity was also afforded to the petitioner to file the same within a particular period but the petitioner failed to do so. 4. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the panchnama has been furnished, therefore, there was no requirement to furnish post-mortem report and since autopsy was not done, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to submit any post-mortem report nor there is any such requirement. 5. The learned Counsel for the Assurance Company submits that in view of agreement entered into between the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the New India Assurance Company Ltd. for insuring registered farmers under Group Personal Accident Policy, the necessary conditions have been prescribed, under which claim can be accepted. 5. The learned Counsel for the Assurance Company submits that in view of agreement entered into between the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the New India Assurance Company Ltd. for insuring registered farmers under Group Personal Accident Policy, the necessary conditions have been prescribed, under which claim can be accepted. In clause 4 of the said agreement it has been provided that necessary documents would be required to establish the cause of death, but the postmortem report will not be insisted upon where body is irrecoverable due to flood. Also, in case of drowning and snakebite, FSL/CA report will not be insisted upon to establish the cause of death. Disablement, to the extent mentioned in the benefit table, caused due to an accident defined above, shall be covered. The policy covers accidental death and disability arising of an accident only, as elaborated in the policy document 6. In clause 21 of the said agreement it has been laid down that in case of inconsistency between the provision of this agreement and the provisions of GPA policy document, the provisions of this agreement shall prevail over the provisions of GPA Policy Document. 7. In clause 19 a forum for deciding dispute has been provided as under : In case of any dispute in deciding the claim of beneficiary, there shall be a committee chaired by concerned District Magistrate of the District. A representative of the New India Assurance Company and the concerned SDM will be the member. The decision of the committee will be binding. 8. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent is that postmortem report was an essential document to establish the cause of the death and that in terms of clause 4 of the agreement, the postmortem report would not be required only where body is irrecoverable due to flood but in other cases the postmortem report would be necessary. He further says that in view of the overriding effect of the agreement the requirement of Panchnama as has been given in the Policy as a substitute to Post-postmortem report would not be an answer to the non-submission of the postmortem report. He further says that in view of the overriding effect of the agreement the requirement of Panchnama as has been given in the Policy as a substitute to Post-postmortem report would not be an answer to the non-submission of the postmortem report. He also submits that the Panchnama which has been furnished by the petitioner was not prepared by the Police, but it is a certificate issued under the signatures of Gaon Pradhan and few other villagers which does not disclose as to how they have reached the conclusion that the death had occurred due to snake bite. Submission in the application is that had it been a ‘Police Panchnama’, the same could have been relied upon. 9. Lastly, it has been submitted that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision of the Company, the matter can be referred to the committee as given in clause 19. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in response has submitted that Panchnama is duly signed by the Pradhan and other villagers and that is sufficient proof of the fact that the cause of death of the husband was snake bite as mentioned therein for the payment. 11. Reliance has also been placed upon the case of Valibhai Omraji v. State, AIR 1963 Guj 145 which says that a panchnama is essentially a document recording certain things which occur in the presence of Panchas and which are seen and heard by them. Panchas are taken to the scene of the offence to see and hear certain things and subsequently they are examined at the trial to depose to those things and their evidence is relied upon in support of the testimony of an investigating officer. A Panchnama recorded on such an occasion is in its turn relied upon in support of the evidence of the Panchas as a statement previously made by them under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. 12. A Panchnama recorded on such an occasion is in its turn relied upon in support of the evidence of the Panchas as a statement previously made by them under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. 12. The learned Counsel for the respondent also fairly conceded before the Court that a cheque amounting to Rupees one lac has already been prepared as this Court had inquired as to why payment has not been made in view of the Panchnama furnished by the petitioner and if the Court directs, the said amount shall be paid to the petitioner but after hearing parties Counsel, we are of the view that though claimant may be entitled to the benefit of the policy and that any hyper-technicality should not come in her way in meeting of her claim but the interest of the Company is also to be safeguarded so that fake claims be not allowed. 13. We, therefore, do not find it expedient to order for payment at this stage but this does not mean that we have given opinion against the claim made by the petitioner. 14. The scheme for the benefit of the family of the tenure-holder/legal heirs in case he meets an accidental death has to be interpreted in the manner which furthers the cause and meets the object and purpose of the scheme. Technicalities cannot be allowed to overshadow the purpose and object of the scheme. 15. The requirement of furnishing documents as provided in the agreement as well as in the policy is mainly for the purpose that cause of death could be ascertained and if found that the same has taken place by some accident as enumerated in the agreement/policy, then the claim should be accepted and the payment be made. The requirement of postmortem report in case of accidental death where death generally takes place in interior or rural areas may not be an essential requirement in all cases where to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate as well as to the satisfaction of the Company, the recorded tenure-holder/farmer has died because of the accidental death which stands established, may be from some other evidence, including Police Panchnama. 16. 16. It is primarily, a burden upon the claimant to place all documents which are necessary for lodging the claim but the moment the claim is lodged, the Company has to investigate and verify as to whether the claim lodged is correct or not. 17. The claim is lodged before the Lekhpal and the Lekhpal thereafter makes recommendation which is also seen by the C.E.O, who is an officer specially deputed for investigating the claim and thereafter the same is forwarded by the District Magistrate to the Company. In case it is found that the death was accidental and is covered by the Policy, there would be no reason for not accepting the claim which is found valid merely because the post-mortem report under given circumstances could not be filed. 18. Clause 4 of the agreement, itself says that ‘necessary documents would be required to establish the cause of death’ and also illustrates a situation, under which, the post-mortem report may not be insisted upon, viz. in case body remains irrecoverable in floods. The aforesaid provision thus requires the claimant to furnish such evidence, which is sufficient to establish the cause of death, which can be established, to the satisfaction of the authorities, by any reliable evidence, even though for any valid or acceptable reason the postmortem report is not available. 19. It can also be not forgotten that there may be a case of self evident of accidental death as defined in the Scheme, where post mortem could not be done, either for the reason of ignorance or that the same could have been done at a far of distance from the place, where the death has occurred, or for any other valid cause. But for the aforesaid reason alone, the claim cannot be rejected. 20. In the instant case panchnama, which is said to have been furnished by the petitioner, has been challenged on the ground that it is not a police Panchnama and that it does not disclose the reason as to how it has been gathered that death has occurred because of snake bite. 21. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in response submits that the Panchnama has been prepared on the personal knowledge of the persons who had signed the same and that in the village, the cause of death i.e. Snake bite, became known to every person. 21. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in response submits that the Panchnama has been prepared on the personal knowledge of the persons who had signed the same and that in the village, the cause of death i.e. Snake bite, became known to every person. His further submission is that there cannot be any ground to reject the contents of Panchnama and if the Company was in any doubt, it ought to have investigated, the cause of death by making such enquiry as may be necessary, but no such effort having been made, the Company could neither have rejected the Panchnama, nor could have rejected the claim suddenly on the ground that the Postmortem report was not filed. 22. We find reason in the argument of the petitioner that merely because the Postmortem report was not filed in the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim could not have been rejected. The Company was under an obligation, to enquire or investigate the case i.e. the cause of death of the husband of the petitioner, if it was not satisfied with the Panchnama by getting the necessary inquiry done. Having not done so, the rejection of the claim is per se bad in law. 23. We are also of the view that this question including the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the claim or not can more appropriately be looked into by the Committee chaired by the District Magistrate as has been provided under clause 19 of the agreement between the Government of U.P. and the Company. 24. We, thorefore, dispose of the writ petition with the direction that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered by the Committee chaired by the District Magistrate for which the Company shall forward all necessary documents and the petitioner would also be given opportunity to lead evidence as she may intend to lead and the matter shall be decided by the Committee of District Magistrate expeditiously keeping in mind the observation made above, say, within four weeks, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order such reference by the Company. The Company shall forward the reference within two weeks from today. 25. The Committee of the District Magistrate shall decide the claim in accordance with Rules. The Company shall forward the reference within two weeks from today. 25. The Committee of the District Magistrate shall decide the claim in accordance with Rules. Payment of the claim to the petitioner, shall abide the decision of the Committee; subject to any challenge being made by the person aggrieved. ————