Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 192 (JHR)

Sakho Dev v. State of Jharkhand

2012-02-06

D.N.PATEL

body2012
JUDGMENT The present application has been preferred regarding non-payment of amount of Group Insurance to the applicant, which became due on account of accidental death of the husband of the petitioner on 20th September, 2003. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that initially W.P.(C) No. 960 of 2009 was instituted and it was directed, vide order dated 19th May,' 2009, to decide the representation of the petitioner (present applicant for the claims made in the memo of the petition. Further, it has been submitted that necessary papers were submitted within time before the company, which in turn submitted related documents of claim before opposite party no. 9 for making payment of the group insurance, but claim was received by Insurance Company (opposite party no. 9) beyond stipulated time, i.e. after three months from the date of accident. Therefore, the claim has not been approved by respondent no. 9. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that respondents are relying upon one agreement, which was never seen by the petitioner or by her husband. The said agreement was said to have been entered into between the Central Coalfields Limited and the Oriental Insurance Company to the effect that claims for Group Insurance will be entertained only if it is made within three months from the date of the accident. 2. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no prejudice is going to be caused to the Insurance Company for delayed payment of Group Insurance, since petitioner is ready to forgo the interest on the delayed payment and is ready to receive only principal amount of the insurance, which became due on account of accidental death of the husband of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that amount of premium has also been deducted as per rule from salary of the husband of the present petitioner. 3. Counsel for Respondent NO.2 submits that actual date of accident is 20th September, 2003 and there was some delay in sending the papers to Respondent No. 9 mainly for the facts that some papers were received from the petitioner at a belated stage and they have come to know about the actual date of accident at a later stage. Nonetheless, the facts remains that the premium was also deducted from salary of the petitioner and it is true that petitioner's husband has expired in the accident. 4. Nonetheless, the facts remains that the premium was also deducted from salary of the petitioner and it is true that petitioner's husband has expired in the accident. 4. I have heard counsel for Respondent No.9, who submitted that they have already filed a counter affidavit and as per Annexure-R9/A to the said counter affidavit, if the claims of Group Insurance are to be made it must be made within a period of three months from the date of accident and in case it is received after three months it will not be entertained. In the present case there is delay in receiving the claim of Group Insurance from Central Coalfields Limited and therefore, the claim was not entertained. Nonetheless, it is fairly submitted by the counsel for the respondent no. 9, that if court orders, the amount shall be paid without treating it as precedent. 5. Having heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that husband of the petitioner was working with the Central Coalfields Limited (Respondent No.2). He met with an accident on 20th September, 2003 and expired the same day. Central Coalfields Limited has taken a Group Insurance under which the petitioner's husband was covered. Premium was also deducted from the salary of the husband of the petitioner as per law. These facts are not denied by the counsel for the respondent no. 9. However, there is delay in receiving the claim from Central Coalfields Limited, i.e. the employer and therefore, the claim of Group Insurance of the husband of the petitioner have been rejected. This contention raised by the counsel for the respondent no. 9 is not accepted by the Court because there is no fault on the part of the petitioner or husband of the petitioner, as after the accidental death of husband of the petitioner, necessary papers were sent to the Central Coalfields Limited and ultimately, Central Coalfields Limited has to send the papers of claim to the respondent no. 9. It is brought on record that claim was received by respondent no. 9 from Central Coalfields Limited on 26th July, 2004, i.e. after approximately seven months after the stipulated period of three months are over. It appears that the respondent no. 9 is relying upon some agreement, which is referred to, in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 9. It is brought on record that claim was received by respondent no. 9 from Central Coalfields Limited on 26th July, 2004, i.e. after approximately seven months after the stipulated period of three months are over. It appears that the respondent no. 9 is relying upon some agreement, which is referred to, in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 9. On perusal of this agreement, it appears that the claims are to be made within three months from the date of accident and if they are not so made, same will not be admitted. On consideration of this clause, it appears that though there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, she is not getting group insurance amount from Respondent No. 9 merely because there is delay in submission of the claim by the employer. The delay cannot be the sole ground for rejection of the present petition as no prejudice is going to be caused to the insurance company, if there is some delay in making the claim by the employer Central Coalfields Limited for the widow of the employee, especially when the widow is not claiming interest upon the principal amount. Neither the employee, who expired, nor the petitioner has signed the agreement, which is referred to in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 9. 6. In view of these facts, I, therefore, direct respondent no. 9 to make the payment of group insurance after holding an enquiry, if it is still required, in which petitioner shall also cooperate. 7. This procedure will be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and necessary amount will be paid to the petitioner within further two weeks. 8. This contempt application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.