Oriental Insurance Company ... vs State Of U P And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 7883 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20385 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Oriental Insurance Company Limited
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Sinha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

The claim of respondent no. 3 under Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojana has been allowed by District Level Committee by order dated 20.3.2020, upsetting the decision of the Petitioner-Insurance Company, rejecting the claim on ground of limitation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Conditions of Insurance Policy, the claim was to be submitted latest by 13.11.2019, while it was made on 30.11.2019, i.e. with a delay of about seventeen days and thus barred by limitation.

The above controversy is no more res integra in view of the judgment of Supreme Court dated 11.3.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal No. 3978 of 2022 (The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sanjesh & Another), decided on 11.3.2021. The order of Supreme Court is as follows: -

"The sole arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim was not filed within a period of one month or extending condonable period of one month.

We do not find any merit in the said arguments in view of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for short, ?the Act?) which reads as under:-

?28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void.? [Every agreement,?

(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or

(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.]?

In view of the aforesaid Section, the condition of lodging claim within a period of one month, extendable by another one month is contrary to Section 28 of the Act and thus void.

In view of the said fact, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of"

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

Order Date :- 25.7.2022

Jaideep/-