United India Insurance Company ... vs Devilal
2022 Latest Caselaw 3197 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6992/2020

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Pamecha Mansion, Opposite Nagar Nigam, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Authorized Signatory Mr. B.l. Meena S/o S.n. Meena, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Meena, At Present Working As Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Devilal S/o Shankerlal, Caste Dhakad, R/o Sukhwada Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

2. Mahila Dugdh Utpadan Sahakari Samiti Limited, Hasmatganj Post, Sukhwada Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

3. Chittorgarh Pratapgarh Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, Chittorgarh (Raj.).

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Aditya Singhi



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                     Order

02/03/2022

This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner challenging

the judgment dated 26.06.2019 passed by the Permanent Lok

Adalat, Chittorgarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court'),

whereby the trial court has allowed the claim of respondent No.1

and directed the petitioner-Insurance Company to pay insurance

claim of Rs.5,00,000/- from 06.10.2017 along with interest @ 9%

per annum. The trial court has further directed the petitioner to

(2 of 4) [CW-6992/2020]

pay Rs.25,000/- to the respondent No.1 as compensation in lieu of

mental and physical agony with a further direction that if the

insurance claim is not paid within a period of two months from the

date of passing of the award, the petitioner will be entitled to

receive interest @ 10%.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a

matter of fact, wife of the respondent No.1 did not have any

insurance policy with the petitioner. It is further submitted that the

petitioner-Insurance Company has produced a list before the trial

court received from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in support of its

stand that Bhagwati, wife of the respondent No.1 is not figured in

the said list of persons, who were covered under the insurance

scheme. It is also argued that the trial court while illegally

observing that the said list is forged one has passed the impugned

judgment in a very casual manner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, submitted

the impugned judgment passed by the trial court may be set

aside.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

material available on record.

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have produced a list of the

persons covered under the insurance scheme and claimed that

in the said list, at serial No.5238, name of wife of respondent

No.1 is very much figured. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have

also contended before the trial court that initially, in the list,

due to some typographical error, name of wife of respondent

No.1 was mentioned as Bhagwani instead of Bhagwati and to

rectify the same, the respondent No.2 has written a letter on

08.11.2017 to the petitioner-Insurance Company. It is also

(3 of 4) [CW-6992/2020]

contended on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that petitioner-

Insurance Company did not reply to the aforesaid letter.

Taking into consideration the material placed before it, the

trial court has given a finding that the petitioner-Insurance

Company has produced a fake list of persons covered under the

insurance scheme and has failed to produce the list of the persons

covered under the insurance scheme, which it was in receipt from

the respondent No.3. The trial court has provided opportunities to

the petitioner-Insurance Company to produce the list, which it was

in receipt from the respondent No.3 figuring out name of the

persons covered under the insurance scheme, however, despite

providing opportunities, the petitioner-Insurance Company has

failed to produce the said list before the trial court.

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances

of the case and after perusing the list forwarded by the

respondent No.3 to the petitioner-Insurance Company figuring out

name of the persons covered under the insurance scheme, the

trial court has come to the conclusion that wife of the respondent

No.1 was covered under the insurance scheme and the petitioner-

Insurance Company has illegally refused to pay the insurance

claim to the respondent No.1.

After going through the material available on record and

taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the trial court

has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned

judgment and the petitioner-Insurance company has failed to

satisfy the trial court that wife of the respondent No.1 was not

covered under the insurance scheme, whereas the respondent

Nos.2 and 3 have successfully demonstrate that wife of the

(4 of 4) [CW-6992/2020]

respondent No.1 was very much covered under the insurance

scheme.

In view of the above, I don't find any case for interference in

this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 1-Arun/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)