JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Jagannath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. 3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the State of U.P. launched a scheme of general insurance known as Janta Personal Accident Policy’ for all the farmers of State, who were recorded as owner of land in Khatauni. The scheme was applicable in the cases of accident causing death or physical loss to the farmers whose age was between 12 years to 70 years. An agreement was executed on 16th September, 2006 between Governor of the State through Principal Secretary (Revenue), Government of U.P. referred to in the agreement as “the Government” and the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company referred to in the agreement as “ICICI Lombard”. The State Government floated a tender for insurance of the farmers of the Uttar Pradesh aged between 12 years to 70 years, whose names appeared in the Khatauni of the State as owner of the agricultural land, for Rs.1,00,000/- under the “Janta Personal Accident Policy”. The ICICI Lombard submitted the offer which was accepted by the Government vide order dated 16th September, 2006 on which date agreement was also entered. A policy bond was also issued by the ICICI Lombard copy of which has been filed as Annexure SCA-2 to the supplementary counter affidavit. The period of insurance according to the policy bond was from 17 hours of 16th September, 2006 to 16.59 hours of 16th September, 2007. The State Government also issued a Government order dated 30th October, 2006 copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition with regard to operation of “Janta Vyakatigat Durghatana Beema Yojana”. The petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that his father namely, Gulab Chandra, who was a tenure holder, met with an accident on 2nd January, 2006 and due to injuries received in the stomach, the petitioner’s father died on 22nd October, 2006. The petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that his father namely, Gulab Chandra, who was a tenure holder, met with an accident on 2nd January, 2006 and due to injuries received in the stomach, the petitioner’s father died on 22nd October, 2006. Petitioner’s case further is that after the death of his father information was given by the petitioner to the Lekhpal within a week along with the relevant documents, who after completing the claim submitted the same to the Sub Divisional Officer, Handia through Tahsildar, Handia recommending payment of rupees one lac. Letter dated 20th December, 2006 was sent to the respondent No. 4 on behalf of the District Magistrate referring to the Government order dated 16th September, 2006. The respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 28th December, 2006 to the District Magistrate, Allahabad informing that the claim has been reviewed and it has been decided that since accident occurred on 2nd January, 2006 and policy started from 16th September, 2006, the claim is not covered. The Chief Revenue Officer informed the Sub Divisional Officer vide letter dated 25th January, 2007 regarding the letter of respondent No. 4 dated 28th December, 2006. The Tahsildar after receiving the letter of the Chief Revenue Officer again wrote to the Chief Revenue Officer that since the death of Gulab Chandra occurred on 22nd October, 2006 and the policy has been enforced from 16th September, 2006, the application is again being forwarded. The District Magistrate vide letter dated 26th February, 2007 again forwarded the application to respondent No. 4 for payment under the “Kisan Durghatana Beema Policy” stating that the accident took place on 2nd January, 2006 in which deceased had received injuries and while receiving treatment father of the petitioner died on 22nd October, 2006. It was further stated that date of death being covered by the policy, the claim is re-submitted. A reminder was written again by the District Magistrate on 24th March, 2007 to respondent No. 4. A letter was written by ICICI Lombard on 2nd April, 2007 informing that claim cannot be admitted since intimation was given late. The District Magistrate again wrote on 24th April, 2007 stating that claim was firstly submitted on 20th December, 2006 that was within 90 days and the objection that it was submitted after 90 days is incorrect. A letter was written by ICICI Lombard on 2nd April, 2007 informing that claim cannot be admitted since intimation was given late. The District Magistrate again wrote on 24th April, 2007 stating that claim was firstly submitted on 20th December, 2006 that was within 90 days and the objection that it was submitted after 90 days is incorrect. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation to the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai on 18th June, 2007. The representation submitted on behalf of the petitioner was replied on 29th June, 2007 informing that ICICI Lombard is not liable to pay the claim. Aggrieved against the rejection of the claim by the ICICI Lombard, the petitioner has come up in the writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed by respondent No. 4. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that father of the petitioner, namely, Gulab Chandra, met with an accident on 2nd January, 2006 allegedly by falling from a tree. It is pleaded that at that time the policy was being run by New India Assurance Company Limited and the answering respondent issued the policy only with effect from 16th September, 2006 to 15th September, 2007. It is stated that merely because date of death was 22nd October, 2006, the answering respondent is not liable to pay any compensation insomuch as the relevant date for the purposes of entitlement under the policy would be the date of accident, which was 2nd January, 2006. The claim thus was rejected on 28th December, 2006 giving aforesaid reason. Again the claimant re-pursued the matter, which was turned down on 2nd April, 2007. Thereafter letter was again written by the District Magistrate, which was subsequently replied on 22nd June, 2007 refuting the claim. In the supplementary counter affidavit the respondents have brought on the record copy of the agreement between the Government and the ICICI Lombard dated 16th September, 2006 and one of the policies which was issued by the ICICI Lombard in the year 2004-05, namely “Panjikriti Krishak Durghatana Beema Yojana”. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed in which the petitioner reiterated his claim. In the rejoinder affidavit reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2008(6) ADJ 141 , Smt. Sharda Devi v. State of U.P. and another. 5. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed in which the petitioner reiterated his claim. In the rejoinder affidavit reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2008(6) ADJ 141 , Smt. Sharda Devi v. State of U.P. and another. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition, contended that petitioner’s father having died on 22nd October, 2006 before which date the policy has already begun with effect from 16th September, 2006, the respondent No. 4 is clearly liable. It is further contended that stand taken by respondent No. 4 that there was delay in submission of the claim is incorrect and the claim was submitted within time. The Division Bench judgment in Smt. Sharda Devi’s case (supra) has been relied. Thirdly it has been contended that the District Magistrate is the authority competent under the Government order dated 30th October, 2006 to determine the claim, hence the respondents are bound by the decision of the District Magistrate who has recommended the claim in favour of the petitioner. 6. Sri Rahul Sahai appearing for respondent No. 4, refuting the submissions of counsel for the petitioner, contended that the claim was rejected on 28th December, 2006 giving the reason that since accident took place on 2nd January, 2006, i.e., before the enforcement of the policy, respondent No. 4 is not liable. It is contended that the relevant date for fastening the liability under the policy is the date on which the accident occurred. It is submitted that the death which subsequently took place on 22nd October, 2006 was not relevant for fastening the liability on respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Jijubhai Nathuji Dabhi and others, AIR 1997 SC 2147 , judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Krishna Subbarao Naik and another v. Palani Swamy and others, judgment of Kolkata High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Maya Das and another, 2003(1) TAC 726 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Limited v. Smt. Sita Bai and others. 7. Limited v. Smt. Sita Bai and others. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 further contended that decision dated 28th December, 2006 rejecting the claim was not challenged and the petitioner re-submitted the claim through the District Magistrate, which was again rejected. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that accident in question, which may be a cause of death of deceased Gulab Chandra being outside the coverage period, there is no liability of respondent No. 4. 8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The issue, which has arisen in the writ petition, is as to whether the claim which was submitted by the petitioner, was covered by the policy which was issued by respondent No. 4 for the period 16.9.2006 to 15.9.2007. There is no dispute of fact between the parties that accident took place on 2nd January, 2006 on which date the policy given by respondent No. 4 had not begun. The policy given by respondent No. 4 began only on 16th September, 2006 and the death of Gulab Chandra occurred on 22nd October, 2006 before that the policy of respondent No. 4 had begun. In the present case the question is as to which is the relevant date for determining the coverage of the policy of respondent No. 4. 10. The policy, which has come up for consideration in the present case, is a scheme of general insurance known as “Janta Personal Accident Policy” for all the farmers of the State. The word “insurance” has been defined as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another against loss, damage, or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event. There are different kind of insurance, namely, accident insurance, health insurance, fire insurance, life insurance etc. The accident insurance is an insurance against loss or damage due to accidental injury to the person insured and resulting in disability or death. The insurance being a contract governs the rights and liabilities of the parties. The rights and liabilities flow from the terms of contract. For examining the claim of the parties, thus, it is necessary to refer to the terms of contract between the parties. Copy of the agreement has been enclosed as Annexure SCA-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit. The insurance being a contract governs the rights and liabilities of the parties. The rights and liabilities flow from the terms of contract. For examining the claim of the parties, thus, it is necessary to refer to the terms of contract between the parties. Copy of the agreement has been enclosed as Annexure SCA-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit. The relevant clauses, i.e., Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the agreement dated 16th September, 2006 are extracted below : “(1) The JPA policy will be in the same name of the Hon’ble Governor of Uttar Pradesh. (2) This is an unnamed policy and all farmers in the age group of 12 to 70 years, both inclusive whose names appears in the Khatauni Records of the State of Uttar Pradesh as the owner of agricultural land in the State of Uttar Pradesh, shall be covered under this policy, without any selection. If a farmer attains 12 years of age on any date during the currency of Policy, he/she will be deemed covered from such date. But if a farmer crosses 70 years of age during the tenure of this policy, he/she will also remain covered till the end of the policy period. (3) The JPA policy period shall be for one year from the date of inception of the policy. (4) Scope of Cover : ICICI Lombard, hereby agrees subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions contained or otherwise expressed in the policy document, to pay to the insured a sum not exceeding the sum insured during the tenure of the policy if any of the insured person dies due to or disability as mentioned in the benefit table occurs due to sustaining any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident, caused by external, violent and visible means, to the extent and in the manner hereinafter provided. The accident will include death due to Snake bite, drowning in River, Tank, Pond, or Well, Collapse of roof or falling of tree, falling from roof or tree, Vehicle accident, dacoity, riot, scuffle, enmity etcetera. Necessary documents will be required to establish the cause of death, but post-mortem 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. Necessary documents will be required to establish the cause of death, but post-mortem 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. (5) The Capital Sum Insured (CSI) under this policy shall be 1 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) per farmer. The benefits under this policy shall be : (i) Death and/or Permanent Total Disablement 100% CSI (ii) Loss of 2 Arms or 2 Legs or 2 Eyes 100% CSI (iii) Loss of 1 Arm and 1 Leg 100% CSI (iv) Loss of 1 Arm or 1 Leg or 1 Eye 100% CSI Loss of arm or leg would mean complete loss of arm or leg. Loss of hand or foot would mean separation of wrist and ankle respectively.” 11. Clause 4 of the agreement bearing the heading “Scope of Cover” is relevant which provided that if any of the insured person dies due to or disability as mentioned in the benefit table occurs due to sustaining any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident and in the manner hereinafter provided. Thus the death or disability resulting solely and directly from accident as the name of the scheme suggests, is covered by policy. The insurance is of personal accident. The accident is thus condition precedent for any claim to arrive under the policy. In the event a person dies of natural death, the claim under the policy cannot be invoked. This has been clearly provided in Clause-17 of the agreement itself, i.e., exclusion clause. Relevant portion of Clause 17 of the agreement is quoted below : “17. Exclusions : ICICI Lombard shall not be liable under this policy for : (1) .......... (2) .......... (3) .......... This has been clearly provided in Clause-17 of the agreement itself, i.e., exclusion clause. Relevant portion of Clause 17 of the agreement is quoted below : “17. Exclusions : ICICI Lombard shall not be liable under this policy for : (1) .......... (2) .......... (3) .......... (4) Payment of compensation in respect of death, injury or disablement of insured person— (a) From intentional self injury suicide or attempted suicide; (b) Whilst under the influence of intoxication of liquor or drugs; (c) Whilst engaging in aviation or ballooning or whilst mounting into dismounting from or travelling in any balloon or aircraft other than as a passenger fare paying or otherwise is any duly licensed standard type of aircraft anywhere in the world. Standard type of aircraft means any aircraft duly licensed to carry passengers (for hire or otherwise) by appropriate authority irrespective of whether such an aircraft is privately owned or charted or operated by a regular airline or whether such an aircraft has a single engine or multiengine; (d) Directly or indirectly caused by venereal disease or insanity; (e) Arising or resulting from the insured committing any breach or the law with criminal intent; (f) Self exposure to needless peril (except in an attempt to save human life) (5) Payment of compensation in respect of death, injury of disablement of the insured Person due to, or arising out of, or directly or indirectly connected with or traceable to terrorism, war, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities (whether war be declared or not) civil, war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, mutiny, military or usurped power, seizure, capture arrests, restraints and detainment of all kinds. (6) Payment of compensation in respect of death or bodily injury or any disease or illness to the Insured persons— (a) Directly or indirectly caused by or contributed to by or arising from ionizing radiation or contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear fuel or from any nuclear waste or from combustion of nuclear fuel. For the purpose of this exception combustion shall include any self-sustaining process of nuclear fission. (b) Directly or indirectly caused by or contributed to by or arising from nuclear weapon materials. (7) Death or disablement resulting directly or indirectly caused by and/or contributed to and/or aggravated or prolonged by childbirth or pregnancy or in consequence thereof. For the purpose of this exception combustion shall include any self-sustaining process of nuclear fission. (b) Directly or indirectly caused by or contributed to by or arising from nuclear weapon materials. (7) Death or disablement resulting directly or indirectly caused by and/or contributed to and/or aggravated or prolonged by childbirth or pregnancy or in consequence thereof. (8) Payment of compensation in respect of injury or disablement directly or indirectly arising out of or contributed by or traceable, to any disability existing on the date of issue of this Policy.” 12. The above terms and conditions of the agreement of policy clearly provide that death or disability solely or directly resulting from an accident is covered under the policy. Thus happening of an accident is a foundation or basis for initiating the action. In the present case at the time when accident took place the policy given by respondent No. 4 was not commenced. The policy commenced only on 16.9.2006 whereafter the death occurred on 22nd October, 2006. The scheme, which has been commenced by the State of U.P. by insuring all farmers whose names were recorded as owner in the Khatauni, is for the benefit and protection of the farmers from personal accident. Any disability including death arising out of an accident is covered under the policy. In the present case the accident which occurred on 2nd January, 2006 was outside the period of policy whereas death occurred during the currency of the policy. 13. Paragraphs 423 and 424 of the Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. 45) deal with head “Commencement and Duration of Risk” Paragraph 424 provides as under : “424. Accident Policy The time for commencement and duration of the risk under a policy of accident insurance is determined by reference to the controlling provisions of the contract. The time at which the risk commences under a policy of accident insurance is to be determined by reference to the terms of the contract. In the absence of stipulation to the contrary, an accident insurance policy takes effect from its date, and a policy bearing a given date and insuring for the future only will not permit a recovery for a loss occurring prior to such date. In the absence of stipulation to the contrary, an accident insurance policy takes effect from its date, and a policy bearing a given date and insuring for the future only will not permit a recovery for a loss occurring prior to such date. The duration of the risk is such period as is fixed by the contract, and the insurance company is not liable for an accident occurring after such time, although the beneficiary may recover where injury occurred during the period for which the premium has been paid even though the death of insured took place after such period.....” 14. When insurance company is not liable for the accident occurring after the period of policy, similarly the insurance company cannot be held liable when the accident occurred prior to commencement of the policy. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra and others, (2001) 3 SCC 151 was considering a motor accident claim policy. Following was laid down in paragraph 8 of the judgment : “8. ... The essence of the insurance business is the coverage of the risk by undertaking to indemnify the insured against loss or damage. They agree to pay the damages arising out of any accident by taking a chance that no accident might happen. Motivation of the insurance business is that the premium would turn to be the profit of the business in case no damage occurs. Such business of the insurance company can be carried on only with the premium paid by the insured persons on the insurance policy. The only profit, if at all the insurance company makes, of the insurance business is the premium paid when no accident or damage occurs...” 15. In the case of M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Jijubhai Nathuji Dabhi (supra) the accident took place on 25th October, 1983 at 11.14 a.m. and the policy was renewed on 25th October, 1983 at 4 p.m. The Apex Court held that insurer was not liable. Following was laid down in paragraph 3 of the said judgment : “3. This Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Ram Dayal, (1990)2 SCR 750, had held that in the absence of any specific time mentioned in that behalf, the contract would be operative from the mid-night of the day by operation of provisions of the General Clauses Act. Following was laid down in paragraph 3 of the said judgment : “3. This Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Ram Dayal, (1990)2 SCR 750, had held that in the absence of any specific time mentioned in that behalf, the contract would be operative from the mid-night of the day by operation of provisions of the General Clauses Act. But in view of the special contract mentioned in the insurance policy, namely, it would be operative from 4.00 p.m. on October 25, 1983 and the accident had occurred earlier thereto, the insurance coverage would not enable the claimant to seek recovery of the amount from the appellant-company.” 16. The judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Krishna Subbarao Naik and another v. Palani Swamy and others (supra) is also to the same effect. The Kolkata High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Maya Das and another (supra) was considering a case where coverage of vehicle was from 31st August, 1990 to 30th August, 1991 and the accident took place on 12th January, 1992. Although the policy was taken earlier but after expiry of coverage period on 31st August, 1991, no renewal was taken and renewal was taken at the time when the accident took place. Following was laid down in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the said judgment : “7. The Assistant Manager of the appellant/Insurance Company by an affidavit has disclosed the document stating that the policy of insurance being No. 3152050701658 for a period of 12 months from 31st August, 1990 to 30th August, 1991 covering the use of vehicle No. WGD 1610 (the offending vehicle) was issued in favour of the owner of the vehicle and that the said policy of insurance was not renewed by the appellant/Insurance Company after the expiry of the coverage period on 30th August, 1991. As there was no coverage of the vehicle on the date of the incident the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any part of the awarded compensation to the claimant. Therefore, this appeal should be allowed and the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are set-aside. 9. As there was no coverage of the vehicle on the date of the incident the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any part of the awarded compensation to the claimant. Therefore, this appeal should be allowed and the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are set-aside. 9. Since the vehicle was not covered under any insurance on the date of the accident, the Tribunal is directed to take appropriate steps for proceeding against the insured, Sri Dhiren Guha, the owner of the offending vehicle for realisation of the balance amount of Rs. 35,000/- with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till realisation. The insured, Dhiren Guha, is directed to deposit with the Tribunal the aforesaid sum in cash together with interest as mentioned above within one month from the communication of this order to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall disburse the said amount by an Account payee cheque in favour of the claimant on proper identification.” 17. The Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sita Bai and others (supra) was also considering a case where accident took place on the same day, i.e., 16th April, 1987 at 10 hours whereas the commencement of the police was at 21 hours on 16th April, 1987. Following was laid down in paragraph 7 of the said judgment : “7. In the fact situation of this case, since the commencement of the policy at 21.00 hours on 16th April, 1987 was after the accident which had occurred at 10.00 hours on 16th April, 1986, the Tribunal as well as the High Court were wrong in burdening the appellant-Insurance Company, with any liability under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by applying the law laid down in Ram Dayal’s case, which, on facts, had no application to this case. This case is squarely covered by the judgment in Jikubhai’s case and the other judgments following it as noticed above. The impugned order against the appellant cannot thus be sustained. The same is hereby set aside. The appeal consequently succeeds and is allowed insofar as the appellant is concerned. No costs.” 18. From the proposition as laid down in the foregoing cases, it is clear that the period when the accident took place should be covered under the policy. The impugned order against the appellant cannot thus be sustained. The same is hereby set aside. The appeal consequently succeeds and is allowed insofar as the appellant is concerned. No costs.” 18. From the proposition as laid down in the foregoing cases, it is clear that the period when the accident took place should be covered under the policy. Although in the aforesaid cases the issue that if death occurs during currency of the policy and accident occurs beyond the coverage of the policy what shall be the consequence has not been decided but taking into consideration various clauses of the agreement and the policy document, it is clear that what was covered by the policy was the personal accident. Thus the first issue is answered holding that the policy covers a personal accident and unless the accident takes place during the currency of the policy, the respondent No. 4 cannot be held liable. 19. Now comes to the submission of the petitioner that there was no delay in submission of the claim and rejection by letter dated 2nd April, 2007 on the ground that the claim was late was incorrect. As noticed above, the claim was first raised by son of the deceased (petitioner), which was forwarded by the letter dated 20th December, 2006 to respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 28th December, 2006 rejected the claim holding that accident having taken on 2nd January, 2006, the claim is not covered by the policy. Subsequent letter of respondent No. 4 dated 2nd April, 2007 stating that the claim was submitted late, was with regard to resubmission of the claim, which was submitted after rejection on 20th December, 2006. In any view of the matter in the last letter of the ICICI Lombard, which was written to the petitioner, the whole thing was clearly explained while rejecting the claim vide letter dated 21st June, 2007. Following has been stated in the letter dated 21st June, 2007 : “State of U.P. through its Governor entered into an MOU with ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. where ICICI Lombard issued a Janta Personal Accident Policy to the Governor of U.P. with the registered farmers of U.P. as the beneficiaries. This policy was for a period from September 16, 2006 to September 15, 2007. This policy was for a period from September 16, 2006 to September 15, 2007. The father of the complainant (actual complainant) was a farmer who met with an accident on January 2, 2006 i.e., almost 7 month prior to the inception of policy. He later succumbed to his injuries and died on October 22, 2006. A claim was lodged by the son of the deceased Gulab Chandra. This claim was repudiated on ground that the accident of the deceased took place prior to the inception of insurance policy. The fundamental feature of the referred policy is that the insurer shall cover a risk arising out of an accidental death taking place within the policy period. While in the present case, the accident of the deceased took place before inception of the policy period. Owing to such reasons, the claim was repudiated and an appropriate repudiation letter was issued to the claimant on December 28, 2006. Consequently another independent claim was lodged against the same incident and against the death of the same deceased and by the same claimant, i.e. son of deceased, although the claimant was not entitled for the same. However, this claim was prima facie time barred and thus repudiated." 20. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Smt. Sharda Devi’s case (supra) was a case where the Court held that claim was submitted within time and the claimant was not at fault. It was observed that delay in submission was caused by the district officials, who were held responsible to make payment. There is no dispute to the proposition laid down in the said judgment but in the present case as noticed above, the principal reason for rejecting the claim was that the accident took place prior to the date of enforcement of the policy. The said judgment is not applicable in facts of the present case. 21. The next submission of the petitioner that District Magistrate having recommended the claim, the respondent No. 4 is bound by virtue of the Government order dated 30th October, 2006 to accept the claim. The said judgment is not applicable in facts of the present case. 21. The next submission of the petitioner that District Magistrate having recommended the claim, the respondent No. 4 is bound by virtue of the Government order dated 30th October, 2006 to accept the claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause-11 of the Government order dated 30th October, 2006, which provided that for settlement of dispute in any district there shall be a committee headed by the District Magistrate, which shall also consist of one member of the insurance company and such decision shall be binding. 22. Learned counsel for the respondents has rightly submitted that there is no decision in the present case by the committee contemplated in Clause-11 of the Government order dated 30th October, 2006 and the letters, which were written by the Chief Revenue Officer on behalf of the District Magistrate, were only recommendation. The said letters even do not refer to any decision of the Committee. We are thus satisfied that there has been no decision of the Committee as contemplated under Clause-11 of the Government order. Thus the submission of the petitioner that decision of the District Magistrate was binding also cannot be accepted. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that respondent No. 4 cannot be held liable for the claim which was submitted by the petitioner and was forwarded by the district authorities to respondent No. 4. There is no error in the decision taken by the respondent No. 4 rejecting the claim under the “Janta Personal Accident Policy”. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that prior to 16th September, 2006 when the policy of respondent No. 4 begun, the insurance policy was issued by different insurance company, i.e., New India Assurance Company. No claim is said to have been raised against the said insurance company during which period accident took place. If so advised, the petitioner may raise his claim on the basis of that policy, if permissible according to the terms of the policy, which was current at the time of accident. 24. Subject to observations as made above, the writ petition is dismissed. ————