The rejection of an insurance claim on the ground of delay/limitation without specific terms in the MOU is unjustified, and a writ petition against a State or instrumentality of the State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable.

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.8.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 930 of 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition directing the appellant to file civil suit for realization of the amount paid to the dependents of late Neolal Bedia.

2. Brief facts:-

The appellant-company is a registered company under the Companies Act. Respondent no.2 is the daughter-in-law of late Neolal Bedia, who was working under the appellant-company and died on 20.3.2003 in an accident. Late Neolal Bedia was an employee under the appellant-company designated as Fan Khalasi. For the year 2002-03, a Memorandum of Understanding regarding Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (GPAIS) was signed between the appellant-company and the respondent-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Ranchi, for the period of one year commencing from 31.3.2002 and expiring on 30.3.2003. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) provided for payment of insured amount of Rs. 5 lacs to the dependent of policy holder in the event of accidental death.

3. Late Neolal Bedia died on 20.3.2003 and his dependents filed GPAIS claim before the appellant-company. By letter dated 5.3.2005, the appellant-company had forwarded the same to the respondent-Insurance Company, stating that the required documents would further be forwarded on receipt of the same from the area concerned. Thereafter the insurance claim in respect of late Neolal Bedia was forwarded by the appellant-company, vide letter dated 29.7.2005. The respondent-Insurance Company, vide letter dated 27.3.2006 followed by another letter dated 8.12.2006, required certain documents to be furnished to them. In compliance of the aforesaid letters, the appellant-company had forwarded documents requesting to settle the claim within one month as per the MOU. The respondent-Insurance Company, vide letter dated 27.12.2006, rejected the insurance claim in respect of late Neolal Bedia on the ground that the claim has been intimated after three months of the accident.

4. Since the claim was not finalized, Abulash Devi, wife of late Neolal Bedia, filed writ application in W.P. (S) No. 4273 of 2006, which was disposed of with the observation that Abulash Devi should file all the documents relating to her claim before the authority of the appellant-company. In spite of filing of the documents, group insurance has not been paid. The said Abulash Devi filed another writ petition, W.P. (S) No. 2517 of 2008 and the said writ petition was allowed holding that the interse dispute between the appellant-company and the respondent-Insurance Company cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction and Central Coalfields Ltd. has to deal with the Insurance Company and take appropriate step. Learned Single Judge, however, directed the appellant to pay the amount of group insurance to the said Abulash Devi with statutory interest from the date it was payable till the date of payment. The said Abulash Devi filed contempt petition and during the pendency of the contempt petition, the said Abulash Devi died and in her place, Yashoda Devi, dauther-in-law of late Neolal Bedia, was substituted by the High Court, vide order dated 3.2.2012. In compliance of the order of the Court, the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 8,92,246.53. The appellant-company took up the matter with the respondent-Insurance Company for remittance of the paid amount by letter dated 28.3.2012 (Annexure – 13). Relevant portion of Annexure – 13, letter dated 28.3.2012, reads as under:-

"This has reference to this office letter no. 639 & 5004 dated 07-02-2007 & 27-12-2007 respectively addressed to the Sr. Divisional Manager, OICL requesting to settle the claim of Smt. Abulash Devi W/o Late Neolal Bedia, Ex-Khalasi, Saunda Colliery of Barka Sayal Area in view of the order dated 27-11-2006 of Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand in W.P. (S) No. 2517 of 2008 filed by her against CCL & others. But we did not receive any reply from your office inspite of con