The present application has been preferred regarding non-payment of amount of Group Insurance to the applicant, which became due on account of accidental death of the husband of the petitioner on 20th September, 2003. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that initially W.P.(C) No. 960 of 2009 was instituted and it was directed, vide order dated 19th May,' 2009, to decide the representation of the petitioner (present applicant for the claims made in the memo of the petition. Further, it has been submitted that necessary papers were submitted within time before the company, which in turn submitted related documents of claim before opposite party no. 9 for making payment of the group insurance, but claim was received by Insurance Company (opposite party no. 9) beyond stipulated time, i.e. after three months from the date of accident. Therefore, the claim has not been approved by respondent no. 9. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that respondents are relying upon one agreement, which was never seen by the petitioner or by her husband. The said agreement was said to have been entered into between the Central Coalfields Limited and the Oriental Insurance Company to the effect that claims for Group Insurance will be entertained only if it is made within three months from the date of the accident.

2. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no prejudice is going to be caused to the Insurance Company for delayed payment of Group Insurance, since petitioner is ready to forgo the interest on the delayed payment and is ready to receive only principal amount of the insurance, which became due on account of accidental death of the husband of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that amount of premium has also been deducted as per rule from salary of the husband of the present petitioner.

3. Counsel for Respondent NO.2 submits that actual date of accident is 20th September, 2003 and there was some delay in sending the papers to Respondent No. 9 mainly for the facts that some papers were received from the petitioner at a belated stage and they have come to know about the actual date of accident at a later stage. Nonetheless, the facts remains that the premium was also deducted from salary of the petitioner and it is true that petitioner's husband has expired in the accident.

4. I have heard counsel for Respondent No.9, who submitted that they have already filed a counter affidavit and as per Annexure-R9/A to the said counter affidavit, if the claims of Group Insurance are to be made it must be made within a period of three months from the date of accident and in case it is received after three months it will not be entertained. In the present case there is delay in receiving the claim of Group Insurance from Central Coalfields Limited and therefore, the claim was not entertained. Nonetheless, it is fairly submitted by the counsel for the respondent no. 9, that if court orders, the amount shall be paid without treating it as precedent.

5. Having heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that husband of the petitioner was working with the Central Coalfields Limited (Respondent No.2). He met with an accident on 20th September, 2003 and expired the same day. Central Coalfields Limited has taken a Group Insurance under which the petitioner's husband was covered. Premium was also deducted from the salary of the husband of the petitioner as per law. These facts are not denied by the counsel for the respondent no. 9. However, there is delay in receiving the claim from Central Coalfields Limited, i.e. the employer and therefore, the claim of Group Insurance of the husband of the petitioner have been rejected. This contention raised by the counsel for the respondent no. 9 is not accepted by the Court because there is no fault on the part of the petitioner or husband of the petitioner, as after the accidental death of husband of the petitioner,