Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1113 (JHR)

Fudan Devi v. Central Coalfield Limited

2009-08-12

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT Heard Mrs. M.M.Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondent C.C.L. and Sri G.C.Jha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company namely the Respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay her the Group Insurance benefit which was payable in the account of her deceased husband who died in a road accident while under the employment of the respondent C.C.L. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased husband of the petitioner had died on 16.07.2003 and within less than one and half months i.e. on 30.08.2003, the petitioner had put up her claim for payment of Group Insurance money. When the amount was not paid inspite of repeated demands, the petitioner was compelled to file the instant writ application. Learned counsel refers in this context judgement of this Court dated 10.11.2008 passed in L.P.A. No. 36 of 2008 contending that the law in this regard has been well settled and the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed both on behalf of the respondent C.C.L. as also on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company. 5. The stand taken by the Insurance Company is that the claim for payment of the insurance benefits was not made within the period of limitation as stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the employer and the Insurance Company and therefore Insurance Company has legitimately disowned its liability to make the demand of the petitioner towards payment of Group Insurance amount. 6. The stand taken by the respondent C.C.L., on the other hand, is that under the terms of Insurance Agreement, the deceased was the beneficiary and since the premium amounts were admittedly paid to the Insurance Company, it will not be legally permissible for the Insurance Company to deny its liability under the policy. 7. From the counter affidavit of the respondent employer it appears that though the petitioner’s representation, claiming payment of the insurance amount, was received in the office of the respondent employer on 02.09.2003, but due to lapse of the officer of the concerned department, the representation could not be forwarded within the stipulated period to the Insurance Company. Rather, the claim was forwarded after four and half years to the Insurance Company. 8. Rather, the claim was forwarded after four and half years to the Insurance Company. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent employer submits that having considered the fact that the lapse had occurred on the part of the concerned officer resulting in the detriment of the petitioner, appropriate action has been taken against the erring officer. 9. Be that as it may, the facts remain that the petitioner’s genuine claim for payment of insurance benefits has been denied to her till date on the one pretext or the other while the Insurance Company has disowned the liability, the respondent employer has wanted to shift the onus on the Insurance Company. 10. From the facts and circumstances and considering the fact that admittedly, the Insurance Policy had covered the risk of the deceased husband of the petitioner and also considering the fact that the premium under the Insurance Policy was also paid to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company cannot possibly refuse to acknowledge its liability under the policy only on the ground of delay in putting up the claim. 11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while the liability to pay the amount of insurance does squarely rest upon the Insurance Company, the liability to pay interest on the amount for the delayed payment may not be imposed on the Insurance Company and since the delay is on the part of the employer, the liability to pay interest on the delayed payment should be borne by the employer. 12. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the Insurance Company is directed to pay within one month from the date of this order the insurance amount which is payable to the petitioner in the account of her deceased husband. As regards the interest on the delayed payment, the employer shall pay the statutory interest from the date when the amount was payable and till the date of final payment. However, if on account of such order the Insurance Company suffers any prejudice, it is left open to the Insurance Company to raise this issue before an appropriate forum by way of an independent petition.