Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority vs National Insurance Company And ... on 26 September, 2001
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1 in spite of service. On 6.9.2001 another copy of the petition was served on Mr. M.K. Arora, the nominated Counsel for respondent No. 1 at Chamber No. 384, Western Wing, Tis Hazari, Delhi. Respondent No. 2 is a proforma party.
2. Accordingly, the matter is proceeded ex-parte against the respondent No. 1.
3. The petitioner is the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the DDA'), who has awarded the contract of insuring its employees to respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurance Co.') and raised a claim arising from a group insurance policy covering 25,139 employees of the petitioner in respect of an employee who met with an accident on 20.11.98.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the requisite documents are with the Insurance Co. On 13.5.1999 in spite of several reminders and letter of the petitioner, the Insurance Company did not take any action in respect of the petitioner's claim and by the Letter dated 1.5.2000 (Annexure P-3 at Page 23 of the petition) disallowed the petitioner's claim for insurance for an employee who met with an accident on 20.11.98 and eventually succumbed the injuries for the reason that the insurance premium was not received in time.
5. The averments made in the writ petition having remained unrebutted, this judgment proceeds on the basis that the averments are correct.
6. The learned counsel has relied upon another Letter dated 26th of September, 2000 (Annexure P-5 at Page 27 of the petition) written by the respondent No. 1 recording the reason for refusal that "the accident took place at 1.30 PM whereas the premium was paid at 3.30 PM on the same day". He has further relied upon the Certificate of Insurance which reads as under:
"PERIOD OF INSURANCE 20-11-98 TO
19-11-99
To Midnight of (both days inclusive)"
He submits that since the Certificate covered both the days in toto, the Insurance Co. cannot resort to hypertechnical grounds to disallow the claim of the petitioner when the accident took place on 20.11.98 which day up to midnight was specifically covered up to midnight as per the relevant clause of the policy extracted above. The Insurance Co. is the subsidiary of the General Insurance Corporation of India and hence is a Public Sector Company amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Significantly the Insurance Policy is Personal Accident Insurance Policy (GROUP) and is not in respect of one person. Apart from the utter untenability of the respondent's denial in view of the specific validity of the policy up to midnight of 28.11.98 a public sector company such as a subsidiary of the General Insurance Company is not expected to conduct itself in a manner wholly opposed to equity and public interest on a plea which is hypertechnical and indubitably unsustainable. The petitioner in the present case happens to be another state agency i.e. DDA which is not vitally affected by denial but the plight of the widow and legal heirs of an individual citizen in such a situation would be intolerable. Furthermore DDA is a monolithic body with 25,139 employees insured and deceit or even knowledge of the event has not ever been suggested by the respondent. Significantly the pleas of DDA in its writ petition are as under:-
"j) BECAUSE the Respondent 1 being a public body and engaged in a business of immense public importance is enjoined to act in a manner that is consistent with public element and a public duty is case upon it to ensure that its actions are in conformity with the Preamble, Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of the Constitution.
k) BECAUSE the Respondent 1 has violated the fundamental right to life of the legal heirs of the late employee of the Petitioner as bestowed by Article 21 of the Constitution which inheres in itself the right to livelihood and social security which are, in turn, integral features of socio-economic justice, one of the primary aims of the Constitution.
l) BECAUSE the Respondent 1 has acted illegally, arbitrarily, unfairly and unjustly and in a whimsical manner, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution and has completely ignored the ponderous public duty cast upon it to further the endeavor of the Constitution in promoting socio-economic justice and assuring the right to livelihood.
m) BECAUSE the Respondent 1, being bound by the Directive Principles of the Constitution, as held by the apex Court in L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, has amongst others, violated Article 38 in the Chapter of Directive Principles which casts a duty upon the State to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which social, economic and political justice shall inform all institutions of national life. The respondent 1 has also violated Article 39(a) of the Constitution in that it has prevented the widow from having an adequate means of livelihood. The Respondent 1 has further violated Article 41 of the Constitution as it has failed to make effective provision for the widow in her time of undeserved want and has not ensured that she has adequate economic support, being rightfully hers as being the dependent of a bona fide policy holder of the Respondent No. 1."
Since DDA itself has put such a benevolent interpretation on the constitutional obligations of the respondent and rightly so, DDA itself must obviously as an agency/department of State in its own dealing with citizens be judged by such standards.
7. Since the averments made by the petitioner stood unrebutted, the averments stand admitted and the writ petition is accordingly allowed and a writ of certiorari, quashing the respondent No. 1's letters dated 1.5.2001 and 26.9.2000 is issued. A writ of mandamus is also issued, directing the respondent No. 1 to remit to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,59,731/- Along with simple interest @ 24% from the date of accident, i.e., 20.11.1998 till the date of realization.
8. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed with no orders as to costs.
