Sadhna vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3033 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8591 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Sadhna
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for some unavoidable circumstances, the amendment application could not be filed within time and he prays that he may be permitted to implead the concerned insurance company namely Oriental Insurance Company as respondent no.3.

Prayer aforesaid is allowed. He may do so during the course of the day.

Incidentally Sri Siddharth Jaiswal, who usually appears for the Insurance Company is present in the Court in connection with another matter, accordingly is permitted to receive the notice on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent i.e. Oriental Insurance Company.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dalveer Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2 and Sri Siddharth Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this petition for following reliefs:-

"(A) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.01.2021 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition).

(B) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 and directing them to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh after remand the same.

(C) Issue suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of the case.

(D) Award the cost of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner."

All the counsels agree that the present controversy is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 26.4.2022 passed in WRIT - C No. - 4687 of 2022, the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others No. which is quoted as under:-

1. Heard Sri Kuldip Shanker Amist, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharad Chandra Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. The present petition has been filed for seeking the following reliefs :-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 12.04.2021, passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah, allowing the Claim No. 272800/48/2019/030794 of the respondent no. 3, (Annexure-7 to the writ petition).

ii. Issue a writ, order and direction dismissing the claim of the Respondent No. 3.

iii. Issue any other and further writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and just in the circumstances and facts of the case.

iv. Award cost to the petitioner."

3. By the rejection order, the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of respondent no. 3 which was made under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Beema Yojana, on the ground that the income certificate was not produced by the claimant within 45 days of the death of the deceased husband. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ-C No. 563 of 2020 (Sohni Shankwar Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others), which was disposed of vide order dated 14.01.2020. The aforesaid order is quoted as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

The claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit under the Mukhyamantri Kisaan Avam Sarvahit Beema Yojana has been rejected by the Insurance Company on a technical ground.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Insurance Company has no authority of law to reject the claim.

It is acceptable to the parties that under the scheme, if for any reason, the Insurance Company finds that the claim is not acceptable or it has reservation in accepting the claim, the proper remedy is to refer the matter to the District Level Committee, headed by the District Magistrate and the decision of the said Committee would be final.

In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before the District Magistrate. In case, any such representation is made within a period of two weeks from today, the District Magistrate shall call for the records of the claim submitted by the petitioner and after due verification and examination, get it considered by the District Level Committee in accordance with law, most expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months of submission of representation.

The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly."

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the impugned order was passed by District Magistrate, Etawah on 12.04.2021 holding that since the Samajwadi Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Care Card was liable to be issued free of cost by the Company which was not issued, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any fault on the part of the claimant in getting the income certificate within 45 days of the death of her husband. Accordingly, the claim was allowed granting the compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs.

5. The order is being challenged on two grounds, firstly that the District Magistrate himself has decided the case whereas the claim was to be decided by the District Level Committee and secondly, that the income certificate must have been issued within 45 days but the same was issued after 45 days that cannot be accepted. The identical grounds have been considered by this Court in Writ- C No. 5090 of 2022 (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited And 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. And 133 Others) wherein both the arguments were considered by this Court and relevant paragraphs whereof are quoted as under:-

"The first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be wholly misconceived. In the context of the group insurance policy taken out by the State Government, the claimant-respondent became entitled to claim the insured amount on the occurrence of the accidental death of Pushpendra Kumar during the currency of the group insurance policy. The claim itself was made within time. There is no dispute as to these facts. The further fact that the income certificate was issued beyond a period of 45 days did not set up any inherent infirmity in that claim made as period of 45 days mentioned in amended Clause 2 was only directory, that too for the purpose of making the payment only. It was not necessary to determine the liability of the petitioner that arose on the occurrence of death of the insured during the currency of the insurance policy. The claim itself was made within time. No consequence has been shown provided or existing in the insurance policy clauses as may lead to the inference that the insurance claim would become invalid if the income certificate was produced after 45 days. It only affected the release of payment by the petitioner. In any case, the beneficiaries had no control over the time taken in preparation of the said income certificate, by government functionaries.

The delay if any (of 23 days) is mainly as may have been caused while making procedural compliances. It is neither inordinate nor such as may give rise to any doubt as to the genuineness of the claim. Here it may also be noted that the income certificate and its contents are wholly undisputed. It reflects that the income of the deceased was Rs. 36,000/- per annum at the time of his death. Therefore, the claimant-respondents were wholly eligible to receive the insurance money.

In view of the above, the claim made by the claimant-respondent was wholly genuine and valid. The petitioner-insurer had wrongly repudiated that claim.

As to the second submission we are equally unimpressed. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court is not obligated to correct each and every error of law or fact. Since it cannot be disputed that the claimant is entitled to the insured amount, we decline to offer any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution on a technical ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order should have been passed by the Committee and not the District Magistrate, in her individual capacity. The claimant-respondent being eligible to receive Rs. 5,00,000/- from the petitioner against the insurance policy, no real prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, by the impugned order."

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the same.

7. In view of the final judgment already rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court, we do not find any good ground to take a different view of the matter.

8. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed."

In view of the above quoted judgment, the present petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 16.5.2022

piyush