Honble MATHUR, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the widow Smt. Bhanwari Devi aggrieved of the th order of the Dy. Director, Ordinary Insurance Fund rejecting her claim under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for the government employees.

(2). The petitioners husband Shri Ram Niwas was serving as a Teacher in Government Primary School, Chitani, Police Station, Mundwa. On 9.8.97 when her husband was working on his own farm house, he alleged to have received electric shock at Tube Well. He was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. The doctor issued a certificate Annexure-2 certifying that Ram Niwas died due to electric shock. Petitioner submitted a claim vide application dated 6.9.97 for grant of benefit of Group Personal Accident Insurance as her husband expired due to electric shock. The application was forwarded by the third respondent Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Mundwa to the second respondent i.e. Dy. Director, Ordinary Insurance Fund, jaipur. Along with the application, the petitioner also submitted a report dated 1.9.1997 of the S.H.O., Police Station, Mundwa District, Nagaur. It appears from the said letter that an inquiry was conducted by the S.D.M., nagaur under Sec. 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was found that Ram Niwas died of electric shock. However, the petitioner was informed under communication dated 24.11.1998 that her claim has been rejected. The petitioner widow approached to this Court by way of writ petition. This Court by order dated 10.12.99 instead of admitting disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner may file a fresh claim for Group Personal Insurance after supplying the documents as demanded under letter dated 24.11.1998 or such explanation for non-availability of those documents as may be available to the petitioner. The Court also observed that fresh claim should be considered by the Department objectively. The petitioner submitted a fresh claim as per the directions of this Court. However, the second respondent rejected the claim on the ground of delayed F.I.R. and the fact that there was no post- mortem of the dead body. This way the petitioner has approached to this Court in second round.

(3). I have heard Mr. Vinay Jain learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.K. Vyas Dy. Government Advocate. It appears that the State Government has prepared a scheme known as Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for the Government employees. This scheme has been made applicable to all the government employees. The object of the scheme appears to be to provide minimum help to the family members of the deceased employee, who died in accident. Thus, what is required to be established by the claimed is that the deceased died in accident. This fact can be established by various facts and circumstances including the F.I.R. and the post-mortem report. Thus, if there is sufficient material on record to show that the deceased died of the accident death the claim cannot be rejected simply on the ground that the post- mortem of the dead body was not conducted or there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. The authorities are required to consider the entire matter objectively keeping in view the object of the Scheme.

(4). That in the instant case an inquiry has been conducted by the S.D.M., nagaur under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has concluded that deceased died of accidental death Section 174 Cr.P.C. provides that when the Officer Incharge of a Police Station or some other Officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives on information that a person has committed suicide or has been killed by another or by animal or by machinery or by a accident or has dies under the circumstances raising reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give information thereof to the nearest executive Magistrate empowe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document