JUDGMENT : SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Vineet Singh Chauhan, the leraned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties no. 4 and 5, Sri Rinku Verma and Sri Ajeet Kumar, the learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 to 3 and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of judgment and order dated 10.05.2024, passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow in Permanant Lok Adalat Case No. 428 of 2018, Smt. Preeti and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the opposite parties no. 1 to 3 as death compensation claim amount under Group Accident Insurance Policy, consequent to death of husband of opposite party no. 1, who died on 28.12.2016. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner-Oriental Insurance Company Limited has entered into a contract with the State of Uttar Pradesh under Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Beema Yojna, which is a Group Accident Insurance Policy under which the petitioner is liable to pay claim amount in respect of injuries/death caused due to the accident of eligible persons. 4. The opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3 filed a claim stating that the husband of the opposite party no. 1 and father of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 died on 28.12.2016 in a road accident, while he was aged merely 30 years. The insurance claim was supported by an income certificate dated 21.09.2024 of the deceased issued by the Tehsildar, Kulpahar, Mahoba. On 10.03.2017 the petitioner rejected the insurance claim for the reason that the income certificate could not be verified in its online verification. The opposite parties submitted a fresh income certificate dated 20.03.2017 issued by the Tehsildar, Kulpahar, Mahoba. After rejection of the claim the opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3 filed P.L.A. Case No. 428 of 2018 before the Permanent Lok Adalat which has been allowed by means of the impugned order. 5. The opposite parties submitted a fresh income certificate dated 20.03.2017 issued by the Tehsildar, Kulpahar, Mahoba. After rejection of the claim the opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3 filed P.L.A. Case No. 428 of 2018 before the Permanent Lok Adalat which has been allowed by means of the impugned order. 5. While assailing the validity of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the income certificate dated 21.09.2014 that was initially submitted by the claimants along with their claim, could not be verified in online verification and the subsequent income certificate issued by the Tehsildar in the year 2017 cannot form the basis of a claim raised in the year 2014. 6. Replying to the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3 as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State have submitted that the income certificate dated 21.09.2014 had not been issued through online method and, therefore, its validity could not be verified through online mode. It had been issued by the Tehsildar through offline mode and it ought to have been verified through offline mode only, but the petitioner-insurance company failed to do so and it wrongly repudiated the claim on the ground that the certificate issued through offline mode could not be verified through online mode. 7. For rejecting the claim, the petitioner ought to have made verification of the income certificate of the deceased submitted by the opposite parties in a proper manner. The claim could only be rejected after coming to a conclusion that the certificate was forged or fictitious. The mere fact that the income certificate issued through offline mode could not be verified by online mode, cannot be a ground for rejection of the insurance claim. 8. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the fresh income certificate dated 20.03.2017 bears a QR code thereon and therefore its validity can be verified through online mode and the learned Standing Counsel has himself verified its validity and has submitted a printout taken from the relevant government web portal which verifies genuineness of the income certificate dated 20.03.2017. 9. From the aforesaid facts, it appears that the petitioner had wrongly rejected the claim of opposite parties no. 9. From the aforesaid facts, it appears that the petitioner had wrongly rejected the claim of opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3 by stating that the income certificate issued in the year 2014 through offline mode could not be verified through online mode and the petitioner-insurance company has thereby avoided payment of insurance claim to the opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3, which is payable since the year 2016. 10. Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel has placed before this court a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Uma Devi and others, AIR (2021) All 82, wherein this court has strongly deprecated the conduct of the petitioner-company in filing frivolous litigation for avoiding its responsibility for payment of insurance claims under contracts of insurance entered by the petitioner, in the following words: “25. Thus, the petitioner insurance company not being an ordinary litigant and more particularly bound by the insurance contract (as briefly noted above) should not have filed the present frivolous writ petition to challenge the impugned contractually “binding order.” The conduct of the petitioner in filing the present writ petition deserves to be condemned inasmuch as a frivolous writ petition has been filed to drag in litigation the respondent No. 1 who is a widow and belongs to economically weaker and socially and educationally disadvantageous section of the society.” 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this court finds no merit in the petition and the court deprecates the conduct of the petitioner in filing this frivolous petition. 12. The petition is accordingly dismissed.