Smt. Choti Bahu vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 9983 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6251 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Choti Bahu
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dev Kaushik
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

The son of the petitioner Bheem Singh, having died in an accident on 10.09.2021, the petitioner made a claim for award of compensation under the Mukhya Mantrti Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna on 21.3.2022. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent no. 2 by order dated 26.3.2022 on the sole ground that the claim was received in the office on 25.3.2022, much beyond 75 days, the outer limit permissible under the Scheme. Being aggrieved thereby the instant petition has been filed.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the period of limitation for filing claim as prescribed under general law cannot be curtailed under any agreement or scheme and in support of the said contention he has placed reliance on a recent judgment of Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Sanjesh and another decided on 11th March 2022.

The judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Sanjesh and another dated 11th March 22 is as follows:

"[1] 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.

[2] 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.]"

[3] 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.

[4] 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."

Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel, is not in a position to refute the submission and fairly agrees that the prescription of limitation in the scheme restricting or extinguishing right of the petitioner to claim compensation is not enforceable in view of the judgment of Supreme Court, supra.

Accordingly, the impugned decision of respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed.

The matter is remitted to respondent no. 2 for deciding the claim afresh on merit in accordance with law.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Prashant Kumar, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

Order Date :- 5.4.2023

Jaideep/-