Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1698 (PAT)

Leela Devi v. State of Bihar

2011-08-11

AMARESH KUMAR LAL, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2011
ORDER Heard the parties. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the limitation petition (IA No.3425 of 2011), the delay of 174 days in preferring this appeal is condoned. The IA stands allowed. 3.There is no dispute that husband of the appellant, a Hawaldar in the police force, died in a road accident on 24.5.1993 and at that time he was covered by a general insurance policy taken by the police department. The letter of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited dated 28.3.1995 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It shows that the insurance claim for the insurance amount said to be Rs. One lakh, was not acceptable because information of the road accident in which Havildar Ganesh Ishwar died was received by the insurance company beyond the stipulated period governed by clause 1 of the insurance policy. 4. The learned Writ Court has followed the judgment of the learned single Judge in the case of Smt. Lilawanti Devi v. State of Bihar, 1998 (2) PLJR 692 to hold that the court cannot direct the insurance company to make payment contrary to the terms of the policy. We do not find any good reason to take a different view. 5. Paragraph 8 of the judgment in the case of Smt. Lilawanti Devi runs as follows : “8. In that view of the matter, this court directs the appropriate Respondents- authority of the State Government to examine the claim of the petitioner in respect of insurance amount. The petitioner is directed to make a representation alongwith the relevant records to the respondent no.6. If respondent no.6 finds that the petitioner has been deprived of from the insurance claim as a result of laches on the part of the officers of the State Government, he will make order for payment of insurance amount to the petitioner. If such a representation is made as above, Respondent no.6 will dispose it of within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation.” 6. Similar benefit to the writ petitioner was required to be given but the Writ Court has taken the view that such direction or observation as made in paragraph 8, extracted above, need not be made in this case because the widow has preferred the writ petition in the year 2003, much after death of her husband in the year 1993. 7. 7. Leaned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the widow being an illiterate lady had no knowledge about the insurance policy or the rejection of claim by the insurance company till information to this effect was given to her in the year 1999 by the concerned Superintendent of Police. It was further submitted that thereafter the delay is not substantial and no third party interest is involved in the matter. 8. Considering that the appellant is a widow and the delay is not to affect any third party interest, in our considered view, a direction similar to one contained in paragraph 8 in the case of Smt. Lilawanti Devi (supra) should be given. Hence, we direct the concerned respondents representing the State authorities and its officials to consider a representation from the appellant for the insurance amount and pass appropriate orders within three months of receipt of such a representation. Learned counsel for the appellant has assured that the representation for claiming the insurance amount shall be filed within four weeks from today. The representation should be disposed of by respondent no.2, the Inspector General of Police (Welfare), Govt. of Bihar, Patna. If he finds that the appellant has been deprived of the insurance claim as a result of delay or laches on the part of officers of the State Government, he will make order for payment of an amount equal to the insurance amount to the appellant within the time indicated above. Otherwise, the representation shall be disposed of on its own merit in accordance with law. The order under appeal is modified to that extent. 9. The appeal is disposed of.