Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 90 (ALL)

Shakuntala Devi v. State of U. P.

2018-01-09

PRASHANT KUMAR, RAJAN ROY

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay compensation to the petitioner for the death of her husband as per the Krishak Durghatna Beema Yojna. It is stated at paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Manna Singh S/o Raghubir Singh had died due to electric shock on 08.08.2012. The aforesaid facts also mentioned in the inquest report prepared by the police. 3. It is not out of place to mention here that in the counter affidavit at paragraph No. 6, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 had admitted that the petitioner's husband, namely, Manna Singh S/o Raghubir Singh had died on 08.08.2012 due to electricity current. However, in the said writ petition, the opposite parties had taken a plea that since the petitioner had not produced the post-mortem report of the death of her husband, therefore, she is not entitled for compensation as per the scheme, mentioned herein above. 4. It is true that as per the provisions of the said scheme, it is necessary for the petitioner to annexure the post-mortem report alongwith application for compensation. But according to us the said requirement is necessary for avoiding the false and fake claims made by any applicant and also for proving that the deceased had died due to electric shock or not. In the instant case, in the counter affidavit itself the opposite parties had admitted that the petitioner's husband had died on 08.08.2012 due to electricity current, therefore, the question of proving the cause of death does not arise. In that view of the matter, the demand of post-mortem report and rejection of claim of the petitioner is not justified. As noticed above, since it is admitted position that the husband of the petitioner had died due to the electric shock on 08.08.2012 and the application as per the scheme, had been filed within the time, therefore, only because of some technical reason, the application of the petitioner for compensation cannot be rejected. 5. As noticed above, since it is admitted position that the husband of the petitioner had died due to the electric shock on 08.08.2012 and the application as per the scheme, had been filed within the time, therefore, only because of some technical reason, the application of the petitioner for compensation cannot be rejected. 5. Accordingly, we quash the impugned orders (as contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2) so far it relates to the petitioner and direct the opposite parties to pay the admissible compensation/insurance to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of production of this order by the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is allowed.