JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petitioners and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are represented by their respective learned advocates.

2. It reveals that though on the last occasion i.e., on 16.02.2023, one Ms. Ankita singh, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2/National Insurance Company Ltd. and its officials but for the reasons best known to her she has not appeared today on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e., the Insurance Company. Accordingly, this Court proposes to dispose of the instant writ petition in absence of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

3. Liberty as prayed for, is given to the learned advocate for the writ petitioners to incorporate the new address of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the cause title of the instant writ petition.

4. I have heard learned advocates for the writ petitioner and respondent nos. 3 and 4. I have perused the entire materials as placed before me.

5. In this writ petition as filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the letter dated 28.12.2004 as written by respondent no. 2 being the Senior Divisional Manager of the respondent no. 1/Insurance Company has been assailed. By the impugned letter, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 denied to settle the claim of the writ petitioner on account of delay in intimating the factum of accident/death of the insured within 30 days from the date of incident. The writ petitioners felt aggrieved and thus approached before this Court.

6. In support of the instant writ petition, learned advocate for the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the typed copy of the policy which has been annexed to the writ petition with the mark ‘Annexure P’. It is submitted that according to the conditions of policy, the claim should have been lodged with the Insurance Company within one calendar month after the incident giving rise to the claim unless reasonable cause is shown for delayed submission of claim. It is contended on behalf of the substituted writ petitioners that on account of accidental death of the insured who is the son of the original writ petitioner, she became mentally shattered on account of untimely death of her son which is why the claim was made on 05.12.2022 i.e., within two months from the occurrence of the accident. It is submitted that there cannot be any justifiable cause on the part of the respondent nos. 1 and 2/Insurance Company to deny the claim of the original writ petitioner based upon condition no. 1 of the said policy. In support of his contention, Mr. Ray, learned advocate for the substituted writ petitioners placed his reliance upon a reported decision Bimal Chandra Vs. Regional Manager, the New India Insurance Company Limited and Ors. reported in 2005 (3) Calcutta High Court Notes, 154.

7. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in course of her argument draws attention of this Court to the pages 19 and 21 of the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by her client. It is contended by her that from the materials as placed before this Court, it would reveal that the respondent no. 1/Insurance Company entered into an agreement with the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to the effect that they would extend Janata Personal Accident Insurance cover to their members under group insurance scheme and it is further contended that the insured Debabrata Chatterjee (since deceased) during his lifetime was a member of their club. It is further argued on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 that by issuing a letter dated July 17, 2001, the respondent no. 1 /Insurance Company has agreed to settle the claim of the insured who is covered under the personal accident insurance.

8. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates of both the sides, this Court has no doubt that admittedly a Group insurance in the name of ‘Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy’ was issued in the name of Debabrata Chatterjee (since deceased) by the respondent no. 1/In