Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Uma Devi And 2 Others - Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 21066 of 2020
Decided On : 25-01-2021
Nationalization Act – Section 9 – General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 – General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 – Section 16 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 12 – Insurance Claim – Petitioner has challenged the binding order passed by the District Review Committee, Jhansi awarding insurance claim to the respondent No.1 under the “Mukhya Mantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna” – Respondent No.1 is widow whose husband and head of the family/ bread earner, namely late Pramod Kori aged about 25 years died in an accident caused by a vehicle “Tavera”. – He was a petty farmer who owned one sixth share out of total area of 0.882 hectare of agricultural land. He was covered under the aforesaid Kisan Bima Yojna. – After the death of her husband, the respondent No.1 filed an insurance claim with the petitioner under the Kisan Bima Yojna. – She obtained an income certificate issued by the competent authority/ Tehsildar, Garautha, Jhansi, certifying income from all sources to be Rs.2,500/- per month, i.e. Rs.30,000/- per annum.
Finding of the court: Words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. – It is also well settled that terms of the insurance policy have to be strictly construed in order to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer. – The endeavour of the Court should always be to interpret the words used in the contract in the manner that will best express the intention of the parties. – The contract must be read as a whole. – It is not permissible for the court to substitute the terms of the contract itself. No exceptions can be made on the ground of equity. These principles are well settled. – Reference in this regard may be had to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation vs M/S. Garg Sons International (2014) 1 SCC 686 (Paras-10 to 13), Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orrisa vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2016) 15 SCC 315 (paras-9 to 13), General Assurance Society Ltd. vs Chandumull Jain And Anr, 1966 SC 1644 (para-11), Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 567 (paras- 23 to 26), M/S Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd vs Oil & Natural Gas Company, (2010) 11 SCC 296 (para-36) and Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & Anr. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 599 (para-17). – Court have extracted certain relevant portion of the insurance contract between the petitioner and the State Government. – As per terms of the afore-noted contract, income certificate in case of farmers, is not required. – The husband of the respondent No.1 was a farmer. – That apart, even if he is assumed as labourer, yet the income of the entire family had not exceeded Rs.75,000/- as per own report of the petitioner and the report of the investigator of the petitioner as noted in the impugned order. – As per terms of contract of insurance, the petitioner is bound by the order of the respondent No.3 and was also bound to make payment within the time specified failing which penalty of Rs.2,500/- per week is payable to the claimant and yet the petitioner has filed the present writ petition instead of making the payment to the respondent No.1. – Thus, the present writ petition is a frivolous writ petition. – Consequently, it deserves to be dismissed with cost.
Result: – Writ Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the binding order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the District Review Committee, Jhansi (respondent No.3) awarding insurance claim to the respondent No.1 under the “Mukhya Mantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna” (in short “Kisan Bima Yojna”).
2. Heard Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Kumar Kuswaha, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
Facts:-
3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent No.1 is widow whose husband and head of the family/ bread earner, namely late Pramod Kori aged about 25 years died on 20.06.2019 in an accident caused by a vehicle “Tavera”. He was a petty farmer who owned one sixth share out of total area of 0.882 hectare of agricultural land. He was covered under the aforesaid Kisan Bima Yojna. After the death of her husband, the respondent No.1 filed an insurance claim with the petitioner under the Kisan Bima Yojna. She obtained an income certificate dated 29.08.2019 issued by the competent authority/ Tehsildar, Garautha, Jhansi, certifying income from all sources to be Rs.2,500/- per month, i.e. Rs.30,000/- per annum. The petitioner rejected the claim of the respondent No.1 by order dated 26.11.2019, observing as under:
“e`rd@ ifjokj dh okfZ"kZd vk; dk izek.ki= e`R;q ds 45 fnu ckn dk cuk gSA
2
tks ;kstuk esa ekU; ugha gSA”
4. Aggrieved with the rejection of her claim by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 filed an application before the District Review Committee headed by the District Magistrate Jhansi who passed the impugned “binding order” dated 20.12.2019 under the Kisan Bima Yojna and awarded the claim of Rs.5 lacs to the respondent No.1.
5. In the impugned order, the respondent No.3 has recorded a findings of fact that the deceased owned agricultural land as aforementioned, deceased was head of the family/ bread earner and income of the family was Rs.30,000/- per annum. The Committee allowed the insurance claim and directed that in the event, the amount awarded is not paid by the petitioner insurance company within one month, then penalty in terms of the Kisan Bima Yojna shall be paid to the respondent No.1 @ Rs.1,000/- per week. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner insurance company has filed the present writ petition.
6. This Court heard at length, the learned counsels for the parties on 10.12.2020 and directed the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith complete scheme “Mukhya Mantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna” and a copy of contract of insurance of the petitioner with the State Government. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 15.12.2020. The scheme “Mukhya Mantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna” as amended, is part and parcel of the agreement/insurance contract dated 13.09.2018 between the petitioner and the Governor of Uttar Pradesh.
Submissions:-
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the averments made in paragraphs-10, 19 and 20 of the writ petition, which are reproduced below:
19. That it would be worth the mention here that the claimant has filed her claim under the scheme on the strength of the income certificate issued beyond the period prescribed under the MOU.
20. That it is categorically submitted that at the time of the renewal of the policy in 2018 the State has agreed to the term that the income certificate has to be issued within 45 days and not beyond that and as such the income certificate issued on 29.08.2019 was fatal for the claimant, for which the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability.”
8. Learne
Point of law: While construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words....
The payment of prior premium is a Sine qua non of coming into force of any contract of insurance between the insured and insurer, and the State Government's insistence on making payment to the farmer....
The rejection of claims by the insurance company was found to be discriminatory, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State Government was held responsible for ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a National Litigation Policy to ensure responsible and efficient litigation by the Government and public sector undertakings, with a f....
Writ petitions related to insurance claims involving factual disputes are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, mandating civil adjudication instead.
Point of law: While dealing with the present appeal, one has to bear in mind that a intra-Court appeal is really not a statutory appeal preferred against the judgment and order of an inferior to the ....
The court affirmed that both 'head of the family' and 'bread earner' can apply to different family members, allowing claims for compensation under the insurance scheme.
Point of Law - Supreme Court noted the applicability of rule Contra Preferentum, to insurance contracts.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
