SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(J&K) 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Tashi Rabstan, J.
T. Vijayachandran Nair – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others – Respondents
SWP No.1004 of 2008 & MP No. 01 of 2017 & MP No.1478 of 2008
Decided On : 02-02-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mrs. Surinder Kour, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Vandana Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Sindhu Sharma, ASGI

Headnote:Service Law-Disability Benefits-BSF-Petitioner is disabled-There is nothing in policy to indicate that 100% disability is a condition precedent for attraction of accident benefit clause in policy-Compensation becomes payable on proof of death or permanent disability of assured as a result of an accident while policy is in force-Petitioner having lost a vital limb totally, has become permanently disabled and incapable of earning any livelihood-Any person having suffered 40% disability cannot be deemed as an able-bodied person merely on the premise that he has some or other earning from other source-Respondents to give benefit of disability claim of LIC policy to petitioner. (Paras 8, 11, 14, 15 and 16)

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant petition has been filed seeking quashment of Order No.34/LIC/SPBY/Adm-1/07/1219 dated 10.09.2007 by virtue of which respondents have rejected the claim of petitioner for grant of disability insurance claim. He further sought direction to respondents to release amount of disability insurance claim along with interest on the grounds taken in it.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Constable on 22.11.1969 and allotted No. 691031000. On 07.09.2006, while he was going on bicycle from Bn. HQ to Trg. Area at Rajouri, he met with RTA involving a private vehicle and fell down due to which he suffered injury on his head and right foot. He was put on conservative treatment both for head and foot injury. Below knee amputation of the Right leg of the petitioner was done. Thereafter, Medical Board was constituted, which after assessment has awarded 40% disability.

3. There was LIC’s New Insurance Scheme for the personnel of Border Security Force called as Seema Parihari Beema Yojana (SPBY). Under said scheme, respondents are said to have deducting money from the pay of BSF personnel and therefore petitioner was also paying the same from his pay, for which respondents are under obligation to pay the amount of insurance on account of injuries he suffered during service but the respondents have not released the said amount but in case of others, the respondents have released. It is stated that the respondents have given different treatment to petitioner while it is settled law that equals shall be treated equally. Learned counsel submits that the amount so claimed by the petitioner is not a bounty and it is treated as property under the provisions of the Constitution. So it violates the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it also violates the provisions of principles of natural justice.

4. Respondents have filed objections insisting therein that on 07.09.2006, petitioner met with a vehicular accident with a Civil Oil Tanker, due to which he sustained head injury and his right leg below knee was also crushed. It is averred that he was immediately evacuated to Sector Hospital, Narayanpur Malda, but as his condition was getting worse, he was referred to National Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, where his right leg below the knee was amputated on 12.09.2006. Meanwhile, a Court of Inquiry was ordered and as per the findings of the Court as well as final remarks of competent authority, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Civil Oil Tanker No. WB-23-8869. Court of Inquiry had further recommended that the case of the petitioner for claiming Seema Parihari Beema Yojana (SPBY), to be taken up immediately with the concerned Insurance Company as per policy laid down in the Scheme. The case for claiming SPBY compensation in respect of the petitioner was taken up with FHQ (Adm-I SPBY Cell), which was returned by Force Headquarter (FHQ) with the remarks that as per para No. 10 (d) of the Agreement executed between the Border Security Force and Life Insurance Corporation of India, the total permanent disability would mean disabilities arising due to accidental inquiry resulting in the irrecoverable loss of one hand in the amputation at or above the wrist and one foot at or above the ankle. It is maintained that on the basis of Medical Board opinion and final remarks of Commandant on Court of Inquiry conducted by the Unit in the accident, proposal for claiming insurance cover under (SPBY) Scheme of LIC was sent to Force HQ BSF (Adm-1 SPBY Cell) New Delhi, but it returned the proposal with the remarks that as per para 10 of the Agreement, disability claim is admissible in total and permanent disability due to accidental injuries resulting in the irrevocable loss of :

(a) The entire sight of both eyes, or

(b) In the amputation of both hands at or above the wrists, or

(c) In the amputation of both feet at or above the ankle, or

(d) In the amputation of one hand at or above the wrist and one














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top