Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 344 (MP)

Rajrani Bhola v. M. P. State Electricity Board

2016-04-28

ROHIT ARYA

body2016
ORDER 1. A widow Smt. Rajrani Bhola wd/o Late Mr. Subhashchandra Bhola in the evening of her life is made to suffer non-release of insurance claim for years together and had to run from pillar to post for the said purpose so that she could tied over the financial crisis of the family due to the sad demise of the sole bread earner of the family, as he passed away at a young age leaving behind unsettled four sons and one unmarried daughter. With hard work but meager earning she could manage to bring up her children. Her need for release of claim was of acute nature, but the same was coiled in legal wrangles between the MPEB and the Insurance Company. For last more than seven years she is waiting for her turn to seek justice in the matter of release of her legitimate insurance claims before this Court. 2. This Court, having appreciated the precarious financial condition and the predicament of the petitioner, on 2.12.2015 had ordered for release of the principal amount of the claim of Rs.80,000/- within specified period. The amount has been released in compliance of the said order, but the aforesaid amount was finalized as far back as on 31.1.1996 and the petitioner was entitled for release of the said amount immediately after death of her husband on 1.8.1989, but the same was not done. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner is entitled for interest on the aforesaid amount. 3. However, Shri S.S. Bansal, learned counsel for insurance company, submits that as per the policy no interest is payable on the amount of claim finalized by the insurance company, hence, the liability of the interest cannot be saddled on the insurance company and in case this Court directs payment of interest on the aforesaid quantified amount, the same may be recovered from the MPEB, besides for want of privity between the insurance company and the petitioner, no liability of interest can be saddled upon the insurance company. As a last ditch effort it is also submitted that the claim is barred by time. 4. Undisputed facts are that husband of the petitioner was serving as a Testing Assistant at the time of his death in harness in the year 1989. As a last ditch effort it is also submitted that the claim is barred by time. 4. Undisputed facts are that husband of the petitioner was serving as a Testing Assistant at the time of his death in harness in the year 1989. The respondent; the then MPEB, had taken a Group Insurance Policy from the respondent/OIC for the benefit of its employees. Petitioner's husband was one of the members of the policy. As per the averments in the writ petition premium of the policy was deducted from his salary during his service tenure by the MPEB. As late as on 31.1.1996 the respondent/insurance company has communicated with the Executive Engineer, Relay Testing MPEB, Roshni Ghar, Gwalior in relation to GPA Cl.No.92/00062 in respect of death of Late Mr. Subhashchandra Bhola; petitioner's husband. The contents thereof read as under :- “Dear Sir, We are pleased to inform you that the above claim stands approved for an amount of Rs.80,000/- by us. We are enclosing herewith Discharge Voucher in duplicate which please return to us duly stamped and signed by you to enable us to release the cheque. Thanking You, Yours Faithfully, Branch Manager Encl: as above. Copy to :- Joint Secretary (P) I, M.P. Electricity Board, JABALPUR.” 5. The aforesaid communication unambiguously brings on surface the fact of finalization of insurance claim in respect of death of Late Mr. Subhashchandra Bhola and quantification thereof at Rs.80,000/- approved by the Oriental Insurance Company. There is no justification on record for non-release of the amount of Rs.80,000/- by the insurance company in the year 1996, therefore, the clause read out to this Court as regards non-entitlement of interest on the amount of policy at the time of maturity shall have no application to the factual matrix in hand as the amount withheld by the insurance company in the year 1996 without any justification makes the petitioner entitled for interest thereupon and the immunity from payment of interest in terms of the policy is not available to the insurance company. Hence, bearing in mind the concept of justice, equity and good conscience, this Court while exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India opines that the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 31.1.1996 till payment thereof, i.e. 11.12.2015. Hence, bearing in mind the concept of justice, equity and good conscience, this Court while exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India opines that the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 31.1.1996 till payment thereof, i.e. 11.12.2015. The amount of interest shall be worked out by the insurance company and be released to the petitioner within six weeks from presentation of certified copy of the order passed today. However, the insurance company if has any grievance in the matter of conciliation/settlement and recovery of the amount with the MPEB, it is at liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. S. G. Chitnis for petitioner; K. N. Gupta with Kumar Gaurav Sharma for respondents No.1 to 3; S. S. Bansal for respondent No.4.