Smt. Amravati Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 555 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Court No. - 03
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25682 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Amravati Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar Sinha
 

 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the State Government framed "Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojana." The State Government invited tenders from Insurance Companies for the purposes of the aforesaid Scheme. The respondent No.3 also participated in the tender process and was awarded the contract and sizeable amount as annual insurance premium was paid by the State Government to the respondent No.3. The Scheme itself is part of the insurance contract between the State Government and the respondent No.3 as found by this court in judgment dated 25.01.2021 in Writ-C No.21066 of 2020 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Uma Devi and 2 others) (paragraph-14). The aforesaid Scheme contains a clause about binding effect of the order which may be passed by the District Magistrate, which is reproduced below:

";fn nkos esa fdlh izdkj dh fMLdszisUlh ik;h tkrh gS ;k dksbZ fookn mRiUu gksrk gS rks ml n'kk esa nkos dh tkap t:jh gksxh rFkk ml tkap vk[;k dks ftykf/kdkjh dh v/;{krk esa cuk;h x;h lfefr ds le{k ,d ekg ds vUnj izLrqr fd;k tk;sxkA ftykf/kdkjh dh v/;{krk esa cuk;h x;h lfefr esa eq[; fodkl vf/kdkjh] eq[; fpfdRlkf/kdkjh] mi ftykf/kdkjh] ftyk cpr vf/kdkjh lnL; gksaxs rFkk chek dEifu;ksa ds izfrfuf/k;ksa dks Hkh vkeaf=r fd;k tk;sxkA lfefr lHkh yfEcr ,oa [email protected] nkoksa ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ysxh rFkk chek dEiuh ml fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj 01 ekg ds vUrxZr nkos ds Hkqxrku ds fy, ck/; gksxhA"

3. According to the respondent No.3, the period covered by the insurance contract was from 14.09.2017 to 13.09.2018. The husband of the petitioner was a poor agriculturist and died on 11.09.2018 due to electrocution. There is no dispute that he was covered by the aforesaid Scheme/ insurance contract. His wife, i.e. the petitioner herein being a poor village lady and also being in grief, could not immediately submit her claim. However, she submitted it within a reasonable time i.e. on 12.11.2018 which was forwarded by the concerned lekhpal with report on 13.11.2018 and the same was forwarded by revenue inspector with his report on 14.11.2018. Entire papers necessary for the purposes of the scheme under the claim were forwarded by the competent authority to the insurance company on 26.11.2018, which were received by the respondent No.3-Insurance Company on 28.11.2018. Thus, there was no dispute that the date on which the death of the husband of the petitioner was caused, is well covered by the scheme/ insurance contract between the State Government and the respondent No.3. Since no claim was granted by the respondent No.3, therefore, the petitioner filed Writ-C No.35450 of 2019 (Amravati Devi vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), which was disposed of by order dated 05.11.2019, as under:

"1. Heard Sri Neelesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the record.

2. Grievance of petititoner is that she has submitted claim under Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvhit Beema Yojna through application dated 6/12.8.2019, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, but, nothing has been done thereon.

3. Learned Standing Counsel fairly submitted that in case such an application is pending and has not been decided so far, the same would be decided expeditiously.

4. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to competent authority to consider petitioner's aforesaid application and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. "

4. Since the respondent No.2, i.e. the District Magistrate has not taken any action, therefore, the petitioner herein filed a Contempt Application (Civil) No.1067 of 2020 (Amravati Devi vs. Sri Navneet Singh Chahal, D.M.), which was disposed of by order dated 14.02.2020, as under:

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

By order dated 5.11.2019 passed in Writ C No. 35450 of 2019 filed by the applicant, this Court directed as under:

"In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to competent authority to consider petitioner's aforesaid application and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. "

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite party but the opposite party has wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, has committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite party to comply with the aforesaid order of the writ Court within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite party and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite party within one week thereafter and keep a record thereof.

The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate the order to the applicant through the self-addressed envelope within a week thereafter.

With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite party within the stipulated time as aforementioned."

5. Thereafter, the District Magistrate convened a meeting in terms of the scheme in which the respondent No.3 also participated and passed the order dated 04.11.2020 holding the petitioner to be entitled for insurance claim and accordingly directed the respondent No.3 to take necessary action to provide the insurance claim amount to the petitioner. Last two paragraphs of the aforesaid order dated 04.11.2020 are reproduced below:

"lnL;ks }kjk ;g er izdV fd;k x;k fd ^^chek dEiuh o mRrj izns'k ljdkj ds chp tks vuqcU/k gqvk i= la[;k& 11997&[email protected]&[email protected]&17 fnukad 13 flrEcj 2017 ds izLrj&4 esa ;g O;oLFkk gS fd ;fn fdlh O;fDr dh nq?kZVuk chek vof/k ds e/; gqbZ gS fnukad 14-09-2017 ls 13-09-2018 ,oa mldh e`R;[email protected];kaxrk chek vof/k ds 6 ekg ds Hkhrj ;Fkk fnukad 13-03-2019 rd gksrh gS rks mls fgrdkjh ykHk jkf'k ns; gksxhA vuqcU/k ds bl izLrj ls Li"V gS fd chek dEiuh fnukad 13-09-2018 rd fdlh u fdlh :i esa chek dh ns; jkf'k nsus gsrq vuqcaf/kr jgh gSA vr% orZeku izdj.k esa vejkorh nsoh dk tks uqdlku gqvk gS ,oa rglhy ds tkWpksijkUr ;g rF; Li"V gqvk fd ;g chek /kujkf'k ikus ds ;ksX; gSA vr% chek dEiuh ls ;g vuqjks/k dj fy;k tk; fd fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vejkorh nsoh dh fLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr chek /kujkf'k iznku djus ij fopkj djsaA

rRdze esa chek dEiuh dks mijksDr izdj.k esa fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr esa vejkorh nsoh dh fLFkfr ds n`f"Vxr chek /kujkf'k iznku djus ij fopkj dj rRdky visf{kr dk;Zokgh djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gS] ftldh lwpuk Jherh vejkorh nsoh dks Hkh fnukad 04-11-2020 dks gh ns nh x;h gSA

vr% ;kfpdkdrkZ dk izR;kosnu mijksDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA"

6. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order dated 11.11.2020 rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

7. We repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 as to whether the order of the District Magistrate dated 04.11.2020 has been challenged by the respondent No.3? The answer has been given in negative, i.e. it has not been challenged.

8. We find that in terms of the Scheme, the order of the District Magistrate is binding upon the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. Since the order of the District Magistrate has not been challenged, therefore, the respondent No.3 could not have rejected the claim of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner has been approved by the Committee. It is also relevant to mention that the claim of the petitioner by order dated 04.11.2020 was decided by the Committee as provided under the Scheme/ insurance contract and the respondent No.3 participated in the meeting in which the aforesaid decision dated 04.11.2020 was taken. Under the circumstances, it is not permissible for the respondent No.3 to deny the payment of insurance claim to the petitioner.

9. For all the reasons aforestated, the impugned order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent No.3 to determine the claim amount and pay the same to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 06.01.2023

NLY