CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9546 OF 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: July 03, 2009.
Parties Name
New India Assurance Company Limited
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
Smt. Sarita Devi and others
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Talwar,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral)
ORDER:
This order will dispose of seven civil writ petitions bearing No.
9546 to 9550, 9587 and 9588, all of the year 2009, as common question of
law and facts is involved in all these cases. For facility of dictating order,
facts are being taken from CWP No. 9546 of 2009.
This writ petition has been filed by New India Assurance
Company Ltd. against award dated May 11, 2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by
the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon,( in short Lok
Adalat) awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimants under
“Devi Rakshak Yojna Insurance Scheme” (in short the Scheme) on account
of death of Shri Subhash Chand, husband of respondent No. 1, in a motor
accident, on October 28, 2004.
Counsel for the petitioner heard.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9546 OF 2009 -2-
It is apparent from the records that the Haryana Government
launched a Scheme, which envisages payment of compensation to all
bread earners of all the families in the State of Haryana, in case a bread
earner suffers death or permanent total disability due to rail, road or air
accident and riots, strike etc. Detail of the circumstances, in which
compensation will be payable, has been given in para No. 2 of the
Memorandum of Understanding entered between Government of Haryana
and the petitioner (Annexure P-3). In the Scheme it is provided that the
petitioner Insurance Company shall disburse amount of compensation to the
family of the deceased within 72 hours after the death.
Subhash Chand, husband of respondent No. 1, died in a road
accident on October 28, 2004. He was 43 years of age. FIR No. 263 was
recorded on October 28, 2004, in Police Station Bilaspur, district Gurgaon,
regarding above said accident. Despite intimation, when compensation was
not paid, private respondents approached the Lok Adalat for claiming
requisite relief. Upon notice, petitioner put in appearance and took up a plea
that only a head of the family, as on the date of issue of the policy, was
covered under the Scheme. It was further objected that as the deceased was
not head of the family, so compensation was not payable to his dependents.
Above said argument has again been reiterated before this Court today at the
time of arguments. This Court feels that the argument is not tenable and
deserves rejection. The Lok Adalat, while rejecting objection, raised by the
Insurance Company, has observed as under:
“The repudiation of the claim has been made on the sole ground
that the deceased was not the head of the family and so the
claim was not maintainable. The respondent has taken an
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9546 OF 2009 -3-erroneous view. The name of the deceased appeared in the old
Ration Card of the family but it was lost. In the new Ration
card got prepared after his death the name of his wife Sarita
Devi with children Mukesh and Aarti appeared. There was a
separate Ration card in the name of Sukhdev and Emarti the
parents of the deceased. This shows he was separate from his
parents and as such was head of the family. It is not correct
that only the head of the family was covered under the policy.
The Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that in Ruby’s case
that view was taken by Insurance Ombudsman. He further
argued that in a clarifying meeting held on 21.10.04 between
the Sr. Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company and the
concerned officers of Haryana Govt., it was mutually agreed to
compensate the death of the head of the family only. The
minutes of that meeting have not been shown. Even if there was
any such meeting and something was agreed it was not given
any effect. The MOU was signed on 25.10.04 i.e. After four
days of the said meeting and no such agreement finds any
mention in the MOU. The word head of family finds no
mention in the MOU. The relevant clause of the MOU reads as
follows:
Definitions
1.Insured beneficiary: it has been decided to continue the
scheme to all the bread earners of all the families in Haryana
whose names appear in the voter list of Haryana or Ration Card
issued by concerned department of Haryana except Govt.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9546 OF 2009 -4-employees and Income Tax payees. In order to clarify the
situation.
It is further stated that if there are more than one bread earners
in a family, in that case only one bread earner will be covered
under the scheme. Accident resulting in death/ permanent
disability met to the insured beneficiaries even outside Haryana
is also covered under the scheme.
So the word ‘head of the family’ finds no mention in the MOU
and it has been clearly mentioned therein that when if there are
more than one bread earners in a family, only one bread earner
will be covered under the scheme. The question of limitation
was also raised but one of the applicants is still minor and so no
question of limitation arises. In III (2003) ACC 25, Smt. Abha
Yadav Vs. Municipal Corporation Delhi which was a suit
claiming damages/ compensation under Section 1A of the Fatal
Accident Act, 1855, it was held that though the suit was filed
after the statutory period of two years, it will still in time as the
time stood extended by legal fiction on account of disability/
minority of three plaintiffs. The suit was filed by widow and
three minor sons and the aged father of the deceased with
mother of the minors as guardian. Thus the applicants are
entitled to the benefit of the policy.”
This Court is of the opinion that the finding given above is
perfectly justified. In MOU, as has been noted above, there is no provision
stating that compensation shall be payable only on account of death of head
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9546 OF 2009 -5-
of the family. Rather it is mentioned that the benefit under the Scheme shall
be available to all the bread earners of all the families in the State of
Haryana, whose name appear in the voters’ list of the State or in ration card
issued by the concerned Department of the State of Haryana except
Government employees and Income-tax payees. The Lok Adalat has noted
that old ration card of the family was lost. New ration card was got
prepared after death of Subhash Chand. In view of that, name of the
deceased did not appear in the ration card. It was also noticed by the Lok
Adalat that parents of the deceased were living separate and had a separate
ration card. Admittedly, the deceased was neither a Government employee
nor Income-tax assessee. This Court is of the view that the respondents were
entitled to get compensation under the scheme, which has rightly been
granted to them by the Lok Adalat. Exactly, a similar controversy came up
before this Court in C.W.P. No. 13979 of 2007 (New India Assurance
Company Ltd. v. Raj Bala and another), decided on April 4, 2008, and a
Division Bench of this Court held that once name of the deceased appeared
in the ration card, then the dependent family member shall be entitled to get
compensation.
No other point was argued. Consequently, the writ petitions
fail and the same are dismissed.
July 03, 2009. ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge