Jharkhand High Court
Sunami Samad vs Divisional Railway Manager on 2 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(S) No.7317 of 2019
----
Sunami Samad .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway Hatia, P.O & P.S.
Jagernathpur, District Ranchi.
2. Senior Divisional Personal Officer, South Eastern Railway Hatia, P.O &
P.S. Jagernathpur, District Ranchi.
3. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railway Hatia,
P.O & P.S. Jagernathpur, District Ranchi.
4. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corportion of India, C.A.B. Ranchi,
Radhayshyam Lane Main Road, Ranchi
.... .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Parwez Ahmad Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent-Railway : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent-LIC : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
----
nd
15/Dated: 02 August, 2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for direction
upon the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay the death
claim of insurance of the deceased husband of the petitioner vide Life
Insurance Policy No.552229756.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband has taken Life
Insurance Policy from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The premium
amount was to be paid by the Railways by deducting from his salary.
3. It appears that due to some service dispute, the salary of month of
June & July, 2016 has not been released. Consequently, the premium amount
has not been remitted to the L.I.C and in the meantime, the husband of the
petitioner had died on 19.09.2016.
4. It further appears that the death claim of the Life Insurance Policy has
been denied to the petitioner on the ground that premium of two months
have not been remitted by the Railway.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as
per the arrangement, the premium amount has to be paid by the Railways by
deducting from his salary but the same has not been made for two months.
Delay of non-payment of salary cannot be a ground for rejection ofdeath
claim itself. For this purpose, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Punnen and Another vrs.
United India Life Insurance Corporation Limited reported in 2022 (3) SCC
655.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-LIC has submitted that the
requirement of the Life Insurance Policy has not been fulfilled and as such,
the claimant is not entitled for the same. Since the premium has not been
paid within the stipulated period as such, the Life Insurance Policy has
lapsed.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the
records, it appears that premium was being paid by the Railways by making
deduction from the salary and if there is non-payment of salary, the
petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer. Further, specially in view of the fact
that if the remittance was not made by the Railways, it is incumbent upon
the respondent-L.I.C to give notice to the policy holder regarding non-
payment of the premium. Admittedly, no notice has been issued.
8. In view of the above facts and the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court as noted above, the matter is remitted back to the Life Insurance
Corporation of India Limited to reconsider the claim of the petitioner.
9. The petitioner is directed to approach before the authority concerned
within a period of four weeks from today with necessary documents and the
authority-Life Insurance Corporation of India is directed to process the same
in accordance with law and take appropriate decision.
10. The decision must be taken within four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
11. With the above observation and directions, the writ petition is hereby,
disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Raja/-
