The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 17547 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46242
 
Court No. - 17
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5882 of 2023
 
Petitioner :- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Deputy General Manager In Charge,Lko. And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Mahanideshak, Sansthagat Vitta, Beema Evam Wahya Sahayatrit,Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow dated 10.05.2023.

3. Brief facts of the present case are that State of Uttar Prdesh has entered into an agreement with the petitioner and pursuant to which an insurance scheme was floated by the State Government under the name of "Samajvadi Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna" and the name of the scheme was changed as Mukhyamantri Kisan & Sarvhit Bima Yojna. The said scheme provided for a personal accident insurance benefit to the maximum of Rs. 5 lakh to be paid on the death of head of the family/bread earner of the family who are between the age group of 18 to 70 years.

4. The controversy in the present case as arisen on the death of one Smt. Manoj Kumari @ Laungshir who was aged about 63 years and died due to snake bite on 14.09.2017 and after her death, the son of the deceased i.e. respondent No. 3, namely Amarnath had filed a claim under the said policy on 12.12.2017 before the insurance Company. Despite submitting their claim, the claimants did not receive any information and consequently moved an applicant before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow.

5. The petitioner refused to enter into a settlement with the claimants and consequentially under the provisions of Legal Service Authority Act, 1987, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow proceeded to consider and decide the case on merits.

6. It has been submitted on behalf of the claimant that the deceased Smt. Manoj Kumari was the sole bread earner member of the family and was herself involved in the agriculture and on her accidental death due to snake bite the claimants were entitled for the benefit of compensation under the Mukhyamantri Kisan & Sarvhit Bima Yojna.

7. The petitioners have raised a preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, at Lucknow to consider and decide the said case.

8. It was submitted that the claimants were residents of Kanpur Dehat and the death also had occurred in Kanpur Dehat and the claim had also been submitted at Kanpur Dehat and consequently the Permanent Lok Adalat at Kanpur Dehat alone would have jurisdiction to consider the said claim and Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow could not have any territorial jurisdiction in the said case. The Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow rejected the contention of the petitioner stating that the agreement between the State of Uttar Pradesh and the petitioner dated 04.09.2016 was entered at Lucknow which was the basis of the claim made by the claimants. Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure was also invoked in support of the claim on the ground that all the defendants reside at Lucknow and the petitioner has its Regional Headquarter at Lucknow and consequently it was observed that the claim could be filed at any place where the defendants reside under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed the said findings.

9. The second ground urged by the petitioner is with regard to the fact that the deceased, namely, Smt. Manoj Kumari was not the sole bread earning member of the family and consequently she is not covered under the said policy. In this regard the Court has considered the evidence, documentary and oral filed before it wherein it was clearly stated that Smt. Manoj Kumari was engaged in agricultural work and was regularly doing work on her fields and merely that she was a lady could not mean that she could not have conducted agricultural work and further recorded that petitioner has not led any evidence to reject the claim of the claimants and there was sufficient material and evidences on record to indicate that deceased was herself engaged in agricultural work and she was the sole bread earning member of the family. The Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow therefore after recording the aforesaid findings rejected the contention of the petitioner.

10. Lastly, it has been urged by learned counsel for petitioner that the said scheme was come into operation only when there is an accidental death. He further submits that in the present case, the post mortem was conducted on the following date of death and Visera was preserved and till the judgment was rendered by Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow, the Visera report has not come and consequently it could not be said that death of Smt. Manoj Kumari is an accident death.

11. A perusal of the report indicates that in the claim, it was clearly mentioned that Smt. Manoj Kumari has died due to snake bite. There was sufficient material available on record to indicate that she was died due to snake bite and even in the post mortem report, it has been recorded that two bite marks size of 0.5 c.m. both are about 2.5 c.ms apart present over the medial margin of left Dorsum of foot present 5 c.m. below the medial Malleolus of left foot.

12. Any person of ordinary prudent would understand that an injury which has been recorded in the post mortem report can be caused by a snake bite and even in the claim it was clearly mentioned that the deceased has died due to snake bite. Even in this regard no other evidence was led by the petitioner to contradict the said findings.

13. Learned Standing counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the claimant has sufficient evidence in support of claim and even the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow has not considered all the evidences and even objections raised by the petitioner.

14. With regard to the preliminary objections regarding territorial jurisdiction raised by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error in the findings recorded by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow. Undisputedly, the agreement between the State and the petitioners was entered on 14.09.2016 at Lucknow. It is the very contract/agreement which is basis of the claim made by the claimants. It was entered at Lucknow even otherwise it was not denied that Regional Headquarter of the petitioner are situated at Lucknow and consequently in light of the provisions provided in Section 20 of CPC, there is no infirmity in Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow dealing and deciding the said case. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow in this regard.

15. With regard to the fact that the deceased was the sole bread earning member of the family, there was sufficient material available on record to indicate that the deceased was herself doing the work of agriculture as was clearly stated in the claim and also in the evidence before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow. Merely because she was a lady, it cannot be presumed that she was not a sole bread earning member of the family. The petitioner in this regard also did not file any contradictory evidence to contradict the claim made by the claimants. This Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow in this regard.

16. Lastly, with regard to accidental death, there is sufficient material available on record to indicate that deceased died due to snake bite. In the post mortem report it has been clearly indicated that two bite marks size of 0.5 c.m. both and about 2.5 c.ms apart present over the medial margin of left Dorsum of foot present 5 c.m. below the medial Malleolus of left foot and she died due to snake bite. It is for this reason that post mortem report was conducted on the next day as ordinarily there was no requirement of conducting post mortem in case a person had died a natural cause. No other grounds were raised by learned counsel for petitioner.

17. This Court after perusing the said judgment of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the said judgment, accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 17.7.2023

Ravi/