Point of Law - Supreme Court noted the applicability of rule Contra Preferentum, to insurance contracts.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present and the connected matters involve a common question of law. The facts are not in dispute. Accordingly, these petitions have been heard together. Upon hearing, other petitions have been de-tagged owing to other issues found involved in those cases, requiring affidavits. However, all counsel (for the respective parties), were heard, on the following common question of law.

“Whether all and/or any bread winner (of an eligible family) were insured under the Insurance Policy, or the 'Mukhiya'/head of the family or the sole bread winner of the eligible family alone was insured?”

2. Heard Sri Parv Agarwal, Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, Sri Komal Mehrotra and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner insurance company (appearing in different petitions); Sri Satya Deo Ojha and Sri Vidya Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant (appearing in different petitions), on the common question of law, noted above.

3. Present writ petition has been filed by the insurance company against the order dated 24.08.2021, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Muzaffarnagar, in Claim Petition -Case No. 191 of 2020 (Smt. Kuntesh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.). Earlier, the petitioner-insurer had repudiated the claim made by the respondent-claimant. Presently, the claim petition instituted with respect to the tailor-made Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Policy) has been allowed. The Insurance Policy was taken out by the State of U.P., with the petitioner-insurer, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U. in short) dated 14.09.2016 (as amended), entered into between the State Government and the petitioner insurer (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement), to implement the State Government's welfare policy measure -the 'Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna' (hereinafter referred to as the Government Policy). Earlier, it was known as the 'Samajvadi Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna', for the term 14.09.2018 to 13.09.2019.

4. Further, the answer to the question of law noted above involves interpretation of the Insurance Policy and the Government Policy, already on record. The parties do not intend to file counter affidavits (to this writ petition). Accordingly, with the consent of parties, this case has been heard finally, at fresh stage. In other matters, affidavits have been called, owing to other issues involved.

5. Briefly, on 14.10.2018, a road accident took place. Therein, Rahul Kumar S/o Smt. Kuntesh/respondent no.1 suffered grievous injuries. He died. His mother/respondent no.1 made a claim for payment of Rs. 5 lacs under the Insurance Policy. It was repudiated by the petitioner-insurer, on 28.11.2019 on account of delay and also for the reason the 'Mukhiya/head of the family' (of the deceased), i.e. father of the deceased Rahul Kumar, namely, Raj Kumar was alive on the date of death of Rahul Kumar.

6. Being aggrieved, respondent no.1 preferred the claim petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat being PLA Case No. 191 of 2020. After efforts to conciliate failed, the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to adjudicate the dispute. Accordingly, it has framed the impugned award dated 24.08.2021. Thereby, the petitioner-insurer has been directed to pay Rs. 5 lacs to the claimant-respondent under the Insurance Policy, within a period of three months from the date of award. Failing that, interest @ 6% (from the date of presentation of the claim petition to the date of actual payment), has been awarded. The objection as to delay was decided against the petitioner-insurer since the claim was made within 30 days from the end of the policy term. No challenge has been pressed to that finding reached (by the Permanent Lok Adalat), in this writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner have vehemently urged -the coverage under the Insurance Policy was to a pre