The Chhattisgarh High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri observed that any form of disability which prevents a person from performing his duty as he used to do prior would be treated as 100% disability in his/her vocational capacity. This requires insurance companies to follow their clauses accordingly. (Yaduvir Singh Bisht Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors.)
Facts of the case
The petitioner who is a sub-inspector was discharging his duties in the coming operation at the forest and at that time of incident he stepped over a pressure bomb and as a result he sustained grievous injuries on his right leg and elbow. He was hospitalised and treated and disability to the extent of 45% was assessed by the medical officers. The state government to protect and encourage its employees had entered into a memorandum of understanding with the insurance company. as per the policy in case of loss of limb, eye or ear he was to be given an assured sum of Rs.5 Lakhs in which the petitioner falls.
It was submitted that the insurance company did not release the said amount even after repeated letters by the director general of police. A legal notice was sent as well but remained unresponded.
The petitioners have filed the present petition for release of the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs against the insurance claim in lieu of the compensation to the petitioner on account of the fact that the petitioner while performing his duties in Bomb Detection & Disposal Squad suffered injuries because of land mine blast on 15.02.2007.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the insurance company submitted that the, petitioner was not entitled for any relief to get a claim of Rs.5 Lakhs instead he was entitled for Rs.1 Lakh as according to the MoU the nature of injury which the petitioner had sustained would fall within the ambit of permanent loss/damage of part or body. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 1 Lakh. He would further submit that the medical certificate only says about 45% disability. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.5 Lakh as has been recommended by the State Government cannot sustain.
However, the counsel for the petitioner said that, the loss of a body part is relate to the occupation of the injured and the loss of limb herein in this case has rendered the petitioner incapable to perform the same job in future up till he retired besides the mental and physical agony. Therefore, the National Insurance Company be directed to release the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
According to the State, the petitioner was an ex-service man before being superannuated and worked as Sub-Inspector in CRPF and while he was posted in District Dantewada, Camp Aranpur which is a Naxallite area of district Dantewada. On 15.02.2007 a patrolling party proceeded for area domination and searching and when they were returning back to the camp Aranpur, a pressure bomb exploded and the petitioner, who was working under the Bomb Disposal Squad, was injured and the pressure bomb was dug out after search and a report to this effect was registered as F.I.R. at P.S. Camp Aranpur District Dantewada. As per the State in order to boost the moral of the employees/officers deployed in naxallite area a policy decision was taken and therefore, a MoU was entered in between the State of Chhattisgarh and National Insurance Company and while the incident happened in view of the MoU which was in operation and clause 8 thereof purports that after submission of the relevant claim documents, the claim would be settled as early as possible within one month.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench taking note of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda V. Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited {AIR 2020 SC 166} noted, "The Supreme Court specifically laid down that when an injury rendered a person incapable to do a particular job considering the avocation, it would deemed to be 100% loss of earning capacity."
The bench taking note of the above case noted that In the instant case, since the petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector under the CRPF in Bomb Detection & Disposal Squad and after he sustained injury after the accident, the injury would not had allowed him to go for a combing operation which requires a particular type of specialized acts during duty. Therefore, unless and until the petitioner is fit to the extent of 100% he could not have discharged the nature of duty which the petitioner was performing.
Consequently, the injury which caused disablement to the part of the right leg to the extent of 45%, and would render the petitioner not to perform his duty to the extent of aggression as was earlier one, it would be deemed to be considered to be loss of limb. The meaning of loss of limb cannot be given a narrow interpretation or a definition that computation only would be considered only for loss of limb. It is obvious that in the like nature of incident if a person is
exposed to any bomb he would not embrace it get his bodily part amputated to come under definition of loss of limb to get a higher claim. Therefore, the incapacity to perform the vocation to the fullest by petitioner for cause of 45% permanent disability of leg would mean that permanent disability sustained in naxallite operation rendering one unfit to do same job would amount to loss of limb as per MoU. The benevolent object of MoU cannot be seen in narrow lence only to avoid liability by insurance company. The denial of the claim by insurance company will defeat the trust in the system & will impress upon the people working in naxallite operation that sword is dangling over them without any sense of security.
The bench allowing the petition remarked, "Therefore, I am of considered opinion that as per the MoU the petitioner would be entitled to get a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs as insurance claim. The documents would show that despite the State persuaded the insurance company to release the amount to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs considering the injury sustained by the petitioner and various letters having written, however, the insurance company remained dormant. There is no denial in the reply of the insurance company also that the letters written by the State were not received from 2011. Accordingly, it is directed that the insurance company shall pay an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order which shall carry an interest @ 6 % p.a. from January 2008. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :