Allahabad High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate ... on 22 May, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38685
Court No. - 7
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2499 of 2024
Petitioner :- The New India Assurance Company Limited Thru. Law Office And Legal Hub Lko. And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Barabanki And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Zafar Aziz
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Zafar Aziz, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with.
3. By means of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.01.2022 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat in Case No. 56/2019 (Bitana Vs. Branch manager, The new India Assurance Company Limited and Anr.).
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that one Samohan Lal @ Neeraj who was husband of respondent No. 2 had died in a road accident on 27.06.2018. The respondent No. 2 being the legal heir of the deceased moved a claim before the petitioners for grant of compensation under Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna. The petitioner after considering the application and relying upon their private investigations by a Surveyor rejected the claim of respondent No. 2 on the ground that the deceased was not eligible under the terms of the said scheme inasmuch as he was not the Mukhiya / sole bread earner of the family and was also unmarried and accordingly rejected the claim.
5. On rejection of the said claim, the respondents having no other remedy filed the claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat where notices were issued to the petitioners who had put in appearance and and also contested the claim preferred by the respondents. Before the Permanent Lok Adalat the petitioners had also taken a plea which finds mention in the rejection order dated 13.10.2018 that the deceased was not the Mukhiya or the bread earner of the family and was unmarried and consequently was not being eligible for compensation under the said scheme.
6. The Permanent Lok Adalat has duly considered the objections of the petitioners and returned a finding that there is no mandatory clause in the said scheme which provides that the deceased should be the Mukhiya of the family. From the evidence on record, he also came to a conclusion that the parents of the deceased were nearly 60 years old and it cannot be denied that he was working in the farm and was bread earner of the family and therefore he was fully eligible for being granted compensation under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna.
7. The Permanent Lok Adalat while allowing the said claim has granted compensation for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs which is the compensation agreed by the petitioner and the State Government under the said policy. Apart from which Rs. 10,000/- has been given on account of mental and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the said case and a total amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- has been awarded along with interest @ 7 % from the date of filing of the claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat till the date of actual payment.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner has reiterated the objection raised before the Permanent Lok Adalat before this Court and prayed for dismissal of the same.
9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
10. It is noticed that a memorandum of understanding was entered into between the petitioner and State of U.P. with regard to Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna where the farmer have been insured against accidental death. There is no dispute that the deceased died during the currency of the said scheme. The only controversy raised by the petitioner is with regard to eligibility of the deceased.
11. A perusal of the said scheme indicates that the definition of the family provdies that in case head of the family / bread earner (male / female), his wife, unmarried daughter, dependent son, husband of the head of the family, unmarried male and defendants would be eligible under the said scheme. The deceased was an unmarried person aged 22 years and undoubtedly he was working in the field as a farmer. No other ground has been urged by the petitioner.
12. This issue has been considered by coordiante Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.04.2022 passed in Writ C No. 2133 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow Vs. Smt. Guddi Devi and Ors. ) has held as under:-
"The submission that only the head of the family can be termed as a bread earner would militate against the terms of the agreement as it is common knowledge that the bread earner can be other than the head of the family also on which the family is dependent. The insurance has been done under a scheme, the aim of which is to grant socio-economic benefits to the under privileged class. Socio-economic benefits flowing out of the schemes have to be interpreted to give a meaning which is expansive and not a restrictive meaning as is being pleaded by the counsel for the petitioner."
13. The Permanent Lok Adalat was of the view that the deceased was a bread earner of the family involved in agriculture and was therefore covered under the policy.
13. Accordingly, this Court after perusing the aforesaid judgment as well as submissions of learned counsel for petitioner is of the considered view that the deceased was fully eligible under the said scheme and the claim was allowed after considering all the material facts and discussing all the objections raised by the petitioner. Accordingly this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
Ravi/
