Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 361 (JK)

Geeta Devi v. NHPC

2017-07-18

B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner’s husband, who was working in NHPC as Cleaner, died on 22.12.2005 by drowning and his dead body was recovered in a decomposed condition on 14.02.2016. The petitioner and her two minor children i.e. one son and one daughter were the survivors of late Sh. Romesh Singh. 2. After the death of petitioner’s husband, the petitioner applied for service benefits including Group Personal Accidental Insurance Claims, Lump sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment and pensionary benefits etc. The respondents paid a sum of Rs.8,07,947/- to the petitioner on account of terminal benefits due to death of the petitioner’s husband in July 2007 vide communication Annexure F. Another sum of Rs.62,000/- was received by the petitioner vide cheque dated 30th January 2009 against Group Insurance Scheme vide Annexure G. The petitioner’s husband was also insured under the Group Personal Accidental Insurance Scheme with the United India Insurance Company and monthly premium against the said policy had been compulsorily deducted by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from the petitioner’s husband’s salary. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite lapse of a number of years from the date of death of husband of the petitioner, neither the benefits under the Group Personal Accidental Insurance Scheme nor the claim for Lump sum amount in lieu of the compassionate appointment has been released to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to information supplied to the petitioner under RTI at page Nos. 37 and 38 of the paper book dated 23.06.2010 which reveals that earlier the claim of the petitioner for Group Personal Accidental Insurance was denied by the Insurance Company on the following grounds: i. The intimation/documents were received late. ii. Proper FIR ha snot been provided. Only a copy of letter given to Deputy Commissioner is provided according to which body recovered remains unidentified. iii. As per post-mortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained. The policy being a Personal Accident Policy, hence proving of death due to accident is must. 5. The matter was again taken up with the Insurance Company by the NHPC on 28.01.2010 on the basis of final report submitted by ASI PS Daporijo indicating that the case was accidental in nature and no foul was suspected. A reminder was also stated to have been issued to the Insurance Company by NHPC on 12.05.2010. 6. 5. The matter was again taken up with the Insurance Company by the NHPC on 28.01.2010 on the basis of final report submitted by ASI PS Daporijo indicating that the case was accidental in nature and no foul was suspected. A reminder was also stated to have been issued to the Insurance Company by NHPC on 12.05.2010. 6. As regards the lumpsum payment under Lump sum Payment Scheme in lieu of erstwhile Compassionate Appointment Scheme, the respondents have taken a stand that as per the provisions of the said Scheme, the claim application was required to be received within one year from the date of death of the employee, but the petitioner failed to submit the said application complete in all respects within the stipulated period of time. 7. As regards the claim of Group Personal Accidental Insurance, reference has been made to Annexure R-4 i.e. letter dated 8th September 2010. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The only dispute which remains alive is with regard to lump-sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment as also with regard to the claim of Group Personal Accidental Insurance. As regards the claim regarding lump sum amount in lieu of erstwhile Compassionate Appointment Scheme, the stand of the respondents is that the application complete in all respects was not submitted within one year from the date of death of the employee. However, the fact remains that the after death of the petitioner’s husband, it was the duty of the respondents to ensure that all assistance was provided to the petitioner being widow of the deceased in order to ensure that application complete kin all respects was submitted and in case, there was any deficiency, it was incumbent upon them to indicate the same to the petitioner in order to enable her to remove the deficiency. Not having done so, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioner for release of Group Personal Accidental Insurance on technical grounds. 10. The claim of the petitioner regarding Group Personal Accidental Insurance as is payable by the United India Insurance Company has been rejected on the grounds as referred to above. The matter was again taken up by the respondent-NHPC with the Insurance Company and the Insurance company vide Annexure R-4 dated 08.09.2010 rejected the same. 10. The claim of the petitioner regarding Group Personal Accidental Insurance as is payable by the United India Insurance Company has been rejected on the grounds as referred to above. The matter was again taken up by the respondent-NHPC with the Insurance Company and the Insurance company vide Annexure R-4 dated 08.09.2010 rejected the same. In the circumstances, the writ petition is partly allowed. Official respondents are directed to intimate the deficiency, if any, by condoning the delay to the petitioner for release lump sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment and on removal of the deficiency by the petitioner as pointed out by the official respondents, the claim of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with the policy as applicable as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by the respondents. Needless to mention, the aforementioned policy is by way of beneficial welfare measure in order to provide relief to the family which has suffered loss on account of death of earning member of the family, therefore, the technical stand raised by the respondent is rejected in view thereof. As regards, the claim of the petitioner under Group Personal Accidental Insurance, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Insurance Company rejecting the claim of the petitioner before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 11. Writ petition is partly allowed in the aforementioned terms.