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.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard.

2. By means of the present petition, petitioner-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Lko. has challenged the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the opposite party No.1-Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow in P.L.A. Case No. 80 of 2020 (Smt. Rachna & Another v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others).

3. Factual matrix of the case is to the effect that a scheme known as "Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojana" (hereinafter referred to as ''Scheme') was promulgated by the State Government in association with the petitioner-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (in short "Company"). The agreement has been entered into by the State Government with the Company for the purposes of payment of certain sum of money in the event of head of the family/bread earner (breadwinner) dying or becoming physically handicapped. The Scheme was available to all those eligible under the terms of the Scheme.

4. It is submitted that one Shivam Verma, unmarried son of respondent Nos.2 and 3 died accidentally on 26.07.2019, thereafter, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a PLA Case No.80 of 2020 before the opposite party No.1 under Section 22C(8) of Legal Services and Authorities Act, 1987. The opposite party No.1 had framed following three issues:-

1 D;k ;kphx.k ;kfpdk esa fd;s x;s dFku ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh la0&1 chek dEiuh ls dksbZ chek /kujkf'k] C;kt ,oa vFkZn.M dh /kujkf'k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gka rks fdruh /kujkf'k\

2 D;k ;kfpdk dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj bl LFkh;h yksd vnkyr dks izkIr ugha gS\

3 D;k ;kphx.k vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\"

5. The opposite party No.1, after framing above quoted issues, vide order dated 22.08.2023 allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation alongwith penalty of Rs. 1,000/- per week since 12.02.2020 and entire amount be paid with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 16.03.2020 along with cots of Rs. 5000/-.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of the said Scheme would indicate that the Scheme would only be available to the head of the family, who is also the "bread earner (breadwinner)", and once the head of the family was not the deceased rather it is his father, one of the claimants, who was the head of the family, as such, the opposite party No.1-Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow has patently erred in law in allowing the case filed by the claimants without considering this aspect of the matter.

7. It is also contended that even if for the sake of arguments the deceased is said to be the ''bread earner (breadwinner)", even then, once no proof was led to the income of the bread earner, as such, he cannot be considered to be the ''bread earner (breadwinner)" to fall within the ambit of the clause of the persons eligible under the Scheme and as such, the opposite party No.1 has patently erred in law in allowing the case. No other ground has been raised.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that a bare perusal of the provisions of the Scheme would indicate that the Scheme is not confined only to the head of the family/''bread earner (breadwinner)". In the Scheme expression/word ''bread earner (breadwinner)" has also been used alongwith the words/expressions "head of the family/''bread earner (breadwinner)" as such, it is apparent that it is not only the father of the deceased, who would have been entitled for the benefit of the Scheme in case of any untoward incident, but the deceased too, in the capacity of being ''bread earner (breadwinner)" would also be entitled for benefit of the Scheme. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment dated 06.04.2022 passed in Writ - C No. 5317 of 2022 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kuntesh and Others) as also on the judgment dated 24.11.2022 passed in Matters Under Article 227 No. - 33280 of 2019 (Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.Thru Sr.Div.Manager Lko v. Smt. Geeta Devi And 3 Ors.), wherein, this Court followed t