Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 581 (UTT)

Sushma Chauhan v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-11-03

RAJIV SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J Three tier elections for Panchayati Raj institutions were held in the year 2005. The date of voting was 08.10.2005. The votes were to be counted on 14.10.2005. 2. The Joint Secretary, Election Commission, has issued a letter dated 28.09.2005 to provide the insurance cover to the employees to be put on elections duty. Petitioner’s husband was working as Home Guard bearing No.1225. He was also put on election duty, as is evident from Annexure No.1, dated 01.10.2005, at Sl. No.8. 3. Petitioner’s husband died while discharging his duties on 07.10.2005. His body was sent for postmortem examination. According to postmortem report dated 07.10.2005, the cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved. 4. All the employees were covered between 06.10.2005 to 09.10.2005, as per the Insurance Policy. According to the terms and conditions of the policy, the employee, who dies on election duty, was entitled to Rs.5.00 lakh, as insurance money. There was prolonged correspondence between various functionaries of the State including Election Commission, Police and Insurance Companies. 5. The fact of the matter is that the case of the petitioner was rejected on 26.12.2005 by the respondent no.6, stating therein that since the petitioner’s husband died due to stomachache or any other disease, hence the case was not covered under the insurance policy. 6. According to the reply filed by the respondent no.1, the State Election Commission has conducted elections of Urban Local Bodies (Municipalities) and Panchayat. It is admitted in the reply that petitioner’s husband was posted in Haridwar and he died while on his duty. The State Election Commission sent a letter to Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Dehradun on 10.05.2005. The Oriental Insurance Company agreed to get the employees insured during Panchayat election. The total strength of employees was 14,000 for which a sum of Rs.7,02,525/-was deposited with the Insurance Company. The policy was signed by the Insurance Company on 23.09.2005, after receiving the amount. 7. The District Magistrate/District Election Officer vide letter dated 06.01.2006 made a request to make the payment of insurance to the petitioner. The State Election Commission sent a letter to the Branch Manager of the respondent no.6-company on 17.01.2006. The claim of the petitioner, as noticed hereinabove, was rejected on 26.12.2005. The panchnama was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The State Election Commission sent a letter to the Branch Manager of the respondent no.6-company on 17.01.2006. The claim of the petitioner, as noticed hereinabove, was rejected on 26.12.2005. The panchnama was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. It has come in the postmortem report dated 07.10.2005 that the viscera was preserved. It was with great difficulty that the same was sent for FSL examination. The copy of FSL report is on record. According to FSL report, no poison was detected in the viscera. 8. According to the reply filed by the respondent no.6, the petitioner could be given insurance money for the death of her husband, in case, he died due to bodily injury from accident caused by external, violent and visible means. 9. The fact of the matter is that the case of the petitioner for insurance was rejected without waiting for FSL report. The case of the petitioner was rejected on 26.12.2005 and the FSL report is dated 07.04.2011. According to postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained. In these circumstances, the viscera was preserved. 10. How the respondent no.6 came to an abrupt conclusion that the petitioner’s husband died due to stomachache or other aliment, has not been explained. The husband of the petitioner, as per the contents of the reply filed by the respondent no.1, has died on elections duty. 11. The State Government has obtained the insurance policy by paying a sum of Rs.7,02,525/-The policy was signed on 23.09.2005. The prolonged correspondence has taken between the various functionaries of the State including Election Commission, District Magistrate and police. In these circumstances, as noticed, hereinabove, the possibility of the petitioner’s husband dying of accident cannot be ruled out. He was 32 years old at the time of his posting on elections duty. He was hale and hearty. No poison was found in the viscera. The cause of death, as per the postmortem report could not be confirmed. It is a fit case where the principles of res ipsa loquitur would apply. Petitioner’s husband was put on election duty and he died during the election duty. 12. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the violence takes place during elections and to allay the fear of the employees put on elections duty, the insurance cover is obtained. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Petitioner’s husband was put on election duty and he died during the election duty. 12. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the violence takes place during elections and to allay the fear of the employees put on elections duty, the insurance cover is obtained. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure No.9 dated 26.12.2005 is quashed and set-aside. The respondent no.6-company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh to the petitioner along with interest @9% per annum, within a period of ten weeks from today. 14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.