Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Central Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.C.L.'), as also learned counsel for the respondent Oriental Insurance Company.

2. The petitioner is the son of the deceased employee of C.C.L., who met with a fatal accident on 8.8.2001. The deceased father of the petitioner was covered by the MOU between the respondent C.C.L. and the respondent Insurance Company, whereby, in case of accidental death of an employee, an amount of compensation of rupees five lakhs was payable. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the claim was submitted to the respondent Oriental Insurance Company by the C.C.L. The said claim was returned back by the respondent Oriental Insurance Company, stating that the claim had been reported after 15.8.2003. Subsequently, the brother of the petitioner was also informed by the C.C.L., that the Oriental Insurance Company had returned the claim as regards the death of his father due to the late submission of the claim.

3. The petitioner, along with his brother again made an application for settlement of the claim, stating that necessary deductions against the group insurance from the salary of the deceased father of the petitioner had been made and the premia were also paid to the Insurance Company by the C.C.L., but the claim of the petitioner remained unsettled by the Insurance Company.

4. Counter affidavits have been filed in the matter both by the C.C.L., as well as by the Oriental Insurance Company. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the C.C.L., the MOU between the Oriental Insurance Company and the C.C.L., has been brought on record as Annexure-A, wherein there is provision for payment of compensation of rupees five lakhs in case of accidental death of an employee. In the said MOU, admittedly, there is no period of any limitation for submitting the claim and even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Coalfields Limited, it is stated that in the insurance policy, there was no provision for any limitation period for submitting/intimating the claim application before the Insurance Company.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Oriental Insurance Company, it is stated that the deceased employee had died on 8.8.2001, whereas the Insurance Company was intimated for the first time on 31.7.2004/3.8.2004, i.e., after the lapse of about two years eight months, as against the policy for the year 2001-2002. The claim was accordingly, returned back due to the late intimation, without considering the merits of the claim.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though the father of the petitioner died in the year 2001 itself, and the regular deduction from his salary as regards group insurance was being made and even the premia were being paid by the C.C.L., to the respondent Oriental Insurance Company, the claim has been illegally rejected by the respondent Insurance Company. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of compensation of rupees five lakhs due to the accidental death of the father of the petitioner, along with penal interest thereon.

7. Learned counsel for the C.C.L., on the other hand, has submitted that the claim of the deceased father of the petitioner was submitted before the Oriental Insurance Company, but the same was returned back by the Oriental Insurance Company due to the late intimation, even though in the MOU by which the deceased employee was governed, there was no provision for any limitation period. Learned counsel for the C.C.L., supported the claim of the petitioner submitting that the claim has been wrongly rejected by the Insurance Company.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the claim of the deceased employee has been rightly rejected by the Insurance Company, in view of the fac