JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr. Rinku Verma, learned counsel for opposite parties 3 to 6. 2. Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 27.12.2019 passed in PLA Case No.15 of 2018 by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow whereby claim of private opposite parties for seeking compensation in terms of the Mukhya Mantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna has been allowed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that aforesaid scheme of the State Government was floated in which various insurance companies were a party to the memorandum of understanding for the purposes of providing services for implementation of the said insurance scheme for indemnifying farmers of the State from accident and death arising therefrom. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that agreement was entered into between the petitioner-company and the State on 14.09.2016. It is further submitted that the said scheme was to be implemented with effect from the date it was entered into and as per provisions of the scheme, in case of death arising out of an accident pertaining to head of family/bread earner of family during the operation of the agreement, the insurance company was bound to make compensation at the rate of R.5,00,000/- to the nominee/legal heir. 5. It is submitted that in the present case, admittedly the predecessor in interest of opposite parties 3 to 6, Late Usman Khan was involved in an accident on 12.09.2016 and as a result thereof, passed away on 17.09.2016. It has been submitted that upon claim being made by legal heirs of Late Usman Khan, the same was rejected by the insurance company on 23.02.2017 on the ground that accident resulting in death of Late Usman Khan took place on 12.09.2016, which was prior to enforcement of agreement dated 14.09.2016. As such, the said incident was not covered within the insurance period. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the cause of action, i.e. the accident occurred on 12.09.2016, which was prior to enforcement of insurance agreement dated 14.09.2016, the claim of answering opposite parties has been rightly rejected. It is further submitted that the date of death of Late Usman Khan would be totally immaterial since cause of action has accrued to answering opposite party due to the accident which took place on 12.09.2016. It is further submitted that the date of death of Late Usman Khan would be totally immaterial since cause of action has accrued to answering opposite party due to the accident which took place on 12.09.2016. Learned counsel has also adverted to the fact that by means of impugned order, the petitioner-insurance company has been put to double jeopardy since penalty amounting to Rs.1,000/-per week as provided in the agreement has been imposed along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which could not have been done since award of interest is beyond the stipulations indicated in agreement dated 14.09.2016. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 3 to 6 has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that a perusal of agreement dated 14.09.2016 makes it evident that claim for compensation in terms of aforesaid insurance scheme arises from the date of death of an insured and not from the date of accident and as such cause of action will accrue from the date of death and not from the date of accident as is being submitted by learned counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel has also adverted to Part-I of the agreement dated 14.09.2016 to indicate the specific provision with regard to same. 8. With regard to double jeopardy, it is submitted that agreement dated 14.09.2016 itself stipulates grant of penalty in case compensation is not made upon claim being made under the scheme. It is submitted that the grant of penalty is an issue separate from grant of interest which is awarded in terms of the Interest Act, 1978. 9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, the two questions requiring adjudication, are as under:- (i) Whether cause of action would accrue to a claimant under the scheme from the date of accident or from the date of death as a result of accident? (ii) Whether award of interest in addition to penalty indicated in the agreement amounts to double jeopardy? Question No.(i) : Whether cause of action would accrue to a claimant under the scheme from the date of accident or from the date of death as a result of accident? 10. (ii) Whether award of interest in addition to penalty indicated in the agreement amounts to double jeopardy? Question No.(i) : Whether cause of action would accrue to a claimant under the scheme from the date of accident or from the date of death as a result of accident? 10. With regard to question no.(i), a perusal of Part-I of the agreement dated 14.09.2016 makes it evident that in case of death arising out of an accident pertaining to Head/Bread Earner of a family during course of insurance policy/scheme, the Insurance Company is required to compensate the nominee/legal heirs of deceased to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. The relevant provision reads as under:- ^^nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q&;fn nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k ifjokj ds eqf[k;k@jksVh vtZd dh e`R;q chek vof/k ds nkSjku gks tkrh gS rks chek dEiuh lEiw.kZ chfer jkf'k :0 5-00 yk[k dk Hkqxrku ukfeuh@dkuwuh okfj'k dks djsxhA^^ 11. Evidently, although as per aforesaid clause, accident from which death has occasioned is an essential ingredient for fulfilling the claim of compensation as per insurance scheme, a reading of the said provision makes it evident that cause of action for filing a claim for compensation arises only in case of death due to a previous accident. The stipulation also indicates that the death should have occasioned during the course of insurance scheme. As such, a bare reading of the provision makes it evident that claim for compensation, which is the basic cause of action, arises only upon death of the insured. As such the issue of accident which precedes death of the insured is only a condition precedent for the purposes of entertainability of the claim and it is only death of insured arising from an accident which gives rise to cause of action to nominee/legal heir of the insured. 12. In the present case, it is apparent that although accident has occurred prior to enforcement of the scheme on 14.09.2016 but the death of the insured, late Usman Khan has occurred on 17.09.2016 which was after enforcement of the insurance scheme on 14.09.2016. Clearly, the nominees/legal heirs of the deceased were entitled to maintain a claim in accordance with the scheme since death has occasioned during the subsistence of agreement dated 14.09.2016. To that effect, the claim of opposite parties 3 to 6 was wrongly rejected by the Insurance Company. 13. Question no.(i) is answered accordingly in favour of claimant. Clearly, the nominees/legal heirs of the deceased were entitled to maintain a claim in accordance with the scheme since death has occasioned during the subsistence of agreement dated 14.09.2016. To that effect, the claim of opposite parties 3 to 6 was wrongly rejected by the Insurance Company. 13. Question no.(i) is answered accordingly in favour of claimant. Question No.(ii) : Whether award of interest in addition to penalty indicated in the agreement amounts to double jeopardy? 14. With regard to the second question, it transpires that agreement dated 14.09.2016 provides for imposition of penalty upon the Insurance Company in case payment is not made to claimant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. It appears that earlier an amount of Rs.2500/-per week had been imposed as penalty, which was subsequently reduced to Rs.1,000/-per week. 15. Apparently, the imposition of penalty upon the Insurance Company is a measure not only of encouragement to adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement but is also in the nature of cost imposed upon the Insurance Company in case the claim is wrongly repudiated and compensation is not made to the nominee/legal heir of the insured. 16. By means of impugned order, while the Permanent Lok Adalat has imposed the aforesaid penalty, at the same time interest at the rate of 9% has also been imposed upon the Insurance Company. 17. It is trite that when claims are made and are to be decided in terms of a contract, it is only the conditions of contract which are required to be adhered to. The court concerned cannot on its own volition impose a condition which is not contemplated in the agreement. In the present case, it appears that a steep penalty of Rs.1000/-per week has been imposed upon insurance Company for repudiating or not providing compensation in terms of the insurance scheme. Award of penalty by Permanent Lok Adalat as such appears to be in conformity with agreement dated 14.09.2016. However, so far as award of interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum is concerned, the Permanent Lok Adalat in its impugned order does not indicate any provision or condition of agreement under which interest has been awarded over and above penalty imposed in terms of the agreement nor does the agreement contain any clause regarding payment of interest to claimant over and above the penalty clause. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, the permanent Lok Adalat travelled beyond the conditions of agreement dated 14.09.2016 in granting interest while ignoring the fact that a steep penalty of Rs.1,000/-per week has already been imposed and is payable by the Insurance Company in terms of the agreement. 18. As has been indicated herein above that when claim is made in terms of mutually agreed and binding contract, it is only the conditions of contract which are adhered to without imposition of extraneous considerations. As such, once a penalty is clearly indicated under the contract for a party to fulfill in case of breach of contract, it is only that penalty which can be imposed and in the considered opinion of this Court, no further penalty or costs can be imposed which is beyond the terms and conditions of such contract. 19. In the present case, it is apparent that neither any statutory provision has been indicated for grant of interest nor does agreement dated 14.09.2016 stipulate grant of any interest. As such, grant of interest over and above the penalty clearly amounts not only to Double Jeopardy but unjust enrichment and is unsustainable. 20. In view of aforesaid, Question no.(ii) is answered in favour of petitioner-Insurance Company. 21. In terms of aforesaid, order dated 27.12.2019 passed in PLA Case No.15 of 2018(Shameena Khatoon & others v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & others) is set aside only to the extent of grant of interest on the claimed amount. 22. The petition as such is partly allowed in terms of aforesaid. Parties shall bear their own costs.