Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 4983 of 2024
Decided On : 08-07-2024
WELFARE SCHEME - MUKHYAMANTRI KISAN EVAM SARVAHIT BIMA YOJANA - ACT SECTION LIST: Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojana - The court interpreted the provisions of the Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojana (MKSBY) as a welfare scheme aimed at supporting agricultural laborers and their families. It emphasized that the scheme should be construed liberally to ensure that genuine claims are honored, particularly in light of the socio-economic conditions of the beneficiaries. The court found that the rejection of the claim based on technical grounds was unjustified, as the deceased met the eligibility criteria outlined in the scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an insurance company, challenged the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat which allowed a claim made by respondent no. 3 under the MKSBY after her husband, an agricultural laborer, died from burn injuries. The insurance company had rejected the claim on the grounds that the deceased was not a farmer and that an income certificate was not submitted within the stipulated time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Permanent Lok Adalat had correctly determined that the deceased was covered under the MKSBY, as he was the sole breadwinner earning less than the prescribed limit. The court emphasized that the income certificate's late submission should not invalidate a genuine claim.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the claim based on the deceased's status as a farmer and the late submission of the income certificate was justified under the MKSBY.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that welfare legislation like the MKSBY should be interpreted liberally to favor beneficiaries. It ruled that technicalities should not prevent genuine claims from being honored, especially when the essential conditions of the policy were substantially met.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the Permanent Lok Adalat's order to grant the claim to respondent no. 3.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Dhruv Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order 01.04.2024, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow in PLA Case No. 28 of 2018 whereby the claim of respondent no. 3 made under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojana (MKSBY) has been allowed and the petitioner Insurance Company has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-which is the insured amount to respondent no. 3 alongwith legal expenses of Rs.5000/-and Rs.1000/-per week Penalty from the date of rejection of claim till its actual payment has been awarded.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of respondent no. 3 had met a fire accident wherein he received serious burn injuries on 04.01.2017 and was admitted to PGI, Safai, where be succumbed to injuries on 16.01.2017. Postmortem was also conducted and Punchnama was also recorded with regard to aforesaid incident. Respondent no. 3 is the wife of deceased Sandeep who was working as agricultural labourer and used to make earning out of working in fields owned by other persons. The deceased was daily labourer and was the bread earner of the family and there is no dispute with regard to this fact. At the time of death of deceased he was aged about 25 years and it is stated that his annual income was Rs.36,000/-.
4. It is in the aforesaid circumstances an application was made to the petitioner seeking compensation under the MKSBY Scheme, but the same was duly considered and rejected by the petitioner on 10.11.2017 on account of two facts, firstly, that the deceased was not a farmer and secondly that income certificate as required under the said scheme has not been furnished.
5. The respondent no. 3 being aggrieved by the rejection of her claim and having no other forum, filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "the PLA"). The PLA duly considered the entire facts of the case and after framing the issues and receiving evidence and considering contentions of all the parties, allowed the claim of respondent no. 3. The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the said order on the ground that the income certificate of the deceased was filed only during the proceedings before the PLA and not at any time prior to the same.
6. It is stated that as per terms of the Policy income certificate had to be filed within 45 days of the death of the insured and the respondent not having filed the certificate were not entitled to receive any claim in this regard. In support of his submissions the petitioner has relied upon the Samajwadi Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna form, which according to the petitioner had been issued by the State Government itself.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the writ petition by submitting that the Scheme has been launched by the State Government taking into account the socio-economic condition of rural-agricultural and marginal farmers and land less labourers known as Samajwadi Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna for their benefit so that the poor and marginal farmers and agricultural labourers can be benefited on account of any accidental death occurring to the bread earner of the family. The main object of the scheme is a preventive measure to save the entire family from becoming destitute and accordingly, it is in pursuance to the aforesaid scheme that respondent no. 3 had moved her claim before the petitioner-Insurance Company on account of death of her husband who died due to burn injuries on 16.01.2017.
8. Perusal of provisions as well as the form annexed alongwith the Samajwadi Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna do provide eligibility conditions for a person to be p
Welfare schemes should be interpreted liberally to ensure that genuine claims are not rejected on technical grounds, reflecting the intent of social justice and support for vulnerable populations.
Insurers must conduct proper verification of claims and cannot reject them based solely on unverifiable methods.
Point of Law : Plea of limitation taken up in the present case on the strength of clause 20 of the agreement read with Article 44 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, would not defeat the ....
Point of Law - Since it cannot be disputed that the claimant is entitled to the insured amount, Court decline to offer any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution on a technical ground.
The rejection of claims under welfare schemes must not be based on narrow interpretations but should consider the substantive relationship between the deceased's activities and their primary source o....
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.
In farmer accidental death welfare schemes, claims cannot be barred by limitation if delay results from revenue officials' negligence; benefits demand liberal interpretation and condonation to fulfil....
Point of Law - Supreme Court noted the applicability of rule Contra Preferentum, to insurance contracts.
Welfare schemes should be broadly construed to fulfill their objectives; evidence-based decisions are needed, avoiding arbitrary rejections.
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
