The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Permanent Lok Adalat Sgnr., ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2783 Raj

[2023/RJJD/009222]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9750/2018

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhansali Tower, Residency Road, Jodhpur Through Senior Divisional Manager.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Permanent Lok Adalat Sgnr., Shri Ganganagar.

2. Manish Kumar Chugh S/o Shri Bharatlal Chugh, R.f.- 5, Ridhi Sidhi Enclave I, Shri Ganganagar.

3. Punjab National Bank, Wakhnaghat, Solan (Himachal Pradesh).

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. L.D. Khatri
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Jagdish Vyas.
                                     Mr. Aditya Singh Rathore For Mr.
                                     Pankaj Kumar Gupta.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

06/04/2023

1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the Petitioner may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction judgement dated 06/03/2018 (Annex -6) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside and application filed by the claimant/ Respondent No.2 before Permanent Lok Adalat, Shri Ganganagar in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 90/2017 may kindly be dismissed and any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be allowed."

[2023/RJJD/009222] (2 of 5) [CW-9750/2018]

2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by

learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company, are that

the respondent no.2, being brother of deceased Narendra Kumar

(hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') and nominee in his bank

account, filed an application under Section 22-C of the Legal

Services Authority Act, 1987 before Permanent Lok Adalat, Sri

Ganganagar, and the same was registered as Case No. 90/2017.

2.1 In the said application, it was stated that applicant's

deceased brother has a policy issued in his favour by the

petitioner-Insurance Company for an insured sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Scheme for

accidental claim. It was further stated that applicant's brother died

on 07.03.2017 in an accident, and a report in connection

therewith was registered at Police Station, Ghudva, Mohali,

Chandigarh.

2.2. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 filed a claim application

before the petitioner-Insurance Company, but the same was

rejected. Subsequently, the respondent no.2 filed the

aforementioned application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sri

Ganganagar. The Permanent Lok Adalat vide the impugned

judgment and order dated 06.03.2018 allowed the claim

application and directed the petitioner-Insurance Company to

release the claim amount of Rs.2,12,100/- (Rs.2,00,000/- towards

sum assured and Rs.10,200/- under other heads) in favour of

respondent no.2 within a period of two months from the date of

the order. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been

[2023/RJJD/009222] (3 of 5) [CW-9750/2018]

preferred by the Insurance Company claiming the afore-quoted

reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the

term and conditions provided under the Pradhan Mantri Suraksha

Beema Yojana, in case of an accidental death, it is mandatory to

produce the post-mortem report of the deceased concerned, which

has not been produced by the respondent no.2 in the present

case.

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Permanent

Lok Adalat, however, without considering the cause of death and

without calling for the requisite and mandatory post-mortem

report, passed the impugned judgment and order against the

petitioner-Insurance Company, which is not sustainable in the eye

of law.

3.2. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent no. 2 had

already received the insurance claim amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for

natural death, and therefore, the claim application in question was

not maintainable, as per the terms and conditions specifically

mentioned in the Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojana.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made

on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the report of accident has

been duly registered before the Police Station Ghudva, Mohali,

Chandigarh on 07.03.2017 itself and the said report was produced

before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat. He further submits that

being the declared nominee, the respondent No.1 submitted the

[2023/RJJD/009222] (4 of 5) [CW-9750/2018]

all the relevant documents pertaining to the insurance policy

before the Insurance Company.

4.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner-

Insurance Company again demanded certain documents

document, and in compliance whereof, the respondent again

submitted the entire documents on 23.06.2017. Since the said

documents and all other relevant documents were duly placed on

record before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, therefore, the

impugned judgment and order cannot, in any way, be said to have

been passed erroneously. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the

well reasoned impugned judgment and order passed by the

learned Permanent Lok Adalat calls for no interference.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

6. This Court observes that the respondent no.2 is the nominee

of his deceased brother, and his brother had died in a road

accident, and the report in connection therewith was registered as

Roznamcha No. 19 in Police Station, Ghudva, Mohali, Chandigarh

on 07.03.2017; the police whereafter, proceeded with the

investigation under Section 174 Cr.P.C.

7. This Court further observes that the learned Permanent Lok

Adalat in the impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2018 has

observed that the aforementioned police report and other relevant

documents placed on record before it, left no manner of doubt

regarding the cause of death, and that, the respondent no.2 has

also submitted the death certificate of his deceased brother.

[2023/RJJD/009222] (5 of 5) [CW-9750/2018]

8. This Court also observes that the deceased died due to an

accident, which is a fact established by the aforementioned police

report and the death certificate, and the same has also been

recorded by learned Permanent Lok Adalat in the impugned

judgment and order dated 06.03.2018, and that, the cause of

accident was also investigated into by the police under Section

174 Cr.P.C.. Thus, the mere technical ground of non-production of

the post-mortem report, as raised by the petitioner-Insurance

Company, does not weigh with this Court.

9. This Court further observes that the Roznamcha Report had

been registered within time and there is no dispute regarding the

insurance policy having been issued in favour of the deceased

brother of the respondent no. 2 under the Pradhan Mantri

Suraksha Beema Yojana, and that, the death had occurred due to

an accident.

10. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that in the given factual

matrix, a well reasoned speaking judgment and order impugned

herein, does not call for any interference by this Court.

11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 83-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)