Orissa High Court
Ashamani Udabar vs Bpcl on 18 June, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.32167 of 2022
Ashamani Udabar .... Petitioner
Represented By Adv.
Mr. A.K. Sahoo
-versus-
BPCL, Mumbai & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv.
Mr. S. Patnaik
Mr. S. K. Sarangi, Sr. Adv.
Along with associates
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order 18.06.2024
No.
10. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging
the letter dated 04.02.2022 vide Annexure-4 issued by the
Opposite Party No.2/BPCL, Odisha rejecting the claim of
the Petitioner with regard to grant of compensation on
the accidental death of the beneficiary which is against
the IRDA Circular dated 02.09.2011. He also seeks a
direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties to
// 2 //
award compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- as per public
liability insurance for LPG Customers.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner is an old age lady and she is residing in a rural
area with her family members. As she is being covered
under the "Ujjwala Yojana" Scheme, got a gas connection
from the Opposite Party No.3/Sarala Bharat Gas vide
Consumer No. 87717318 on 03.10.2017.
5. He further submits that in the month of March 2020,
there was an unfortunate incident happened in the
Petitioner's house. Due to gas leakage in the house of the
Petitioner, the grandson of the Petitioner had met thermal
burn and admitted in SCB Medical College & Hospital,
Cuttack. The Petitioner's grandson died during the
course of treatment.
6. He further submits that due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the
Petitioner could not inform the Opposite Parties in time.
Thereafter, the Petitioner had filed a detailed
representation before the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3 and
claimed compensation for her grandson's death. The
Opposite Party No.1/BPCL, Mumbai had transferred the
// 3 //
representation to the Opposite Party No.2/BPCL, Odisha.
However, the Opposite Party No.2/BPCL, Odisha rejected
the representation of the present Petitioner stating therein
that the Petitioner has informed the Opposite Party
No.3/Sarala Bharat Gas after one and half year of the
incident. Hence, this Writ Petition.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also brings to the
notice of this Court to the judgment in Ashok Kumar Vs.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd1, wherein the Supreme
Court has stated that in some cases, the Insurance
Company should not be pedantic about the delay. In the
present case, as the Petitioner is an old lady residing in a
rural area of Deogarh district and because of intermittent
Pandemic, the Petitioner was not able to report in time.
8. Considering the facts and submissions made, this
Court is of the view that the Insurance Company should
compensate the Petitioner against the loss caused. In such
view of the matter, let the Opposite Party No.2/BPCL,
Odisha is directed to resubmit the relevant documents of
the present Petitioner before the Opposite Party
No.5/ICICI Lombard. Considering the status and
(2024) 1 Supreme Court Cases 357
// 4 //
remoteness in the location and the intervening Covid-19
period, the Opposite Party No.5/ICICI Lombard shall
consider the case of the present Petitioner without being
pedantic with respect to the delay. The Opposite Party
No.5/ICICI Lombard shall consider the case of the
present petitioner within a period of three months from
the date of resubmission of the documents by the
Opposite Party No.2/BPCL, Odisha. Further, the
Petitioner shall cooperate regarding the submissions of
relevant documents asked for by the Opposite Party
No.2/BPCL, Odisha and/or the insurer.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
