Conditions restricting the timeframe for filing claims under an insurance scheme are void as per Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. The claim of petitioner under the Mukhyamantri Kishan Evam Sarvhit Beema Yojna has been declined by the District Level Committee on the ground of delay. As per the Committee the claim should have been raised within a period of one month from the date of death which could be further extended for another one month, meaning thereby, within a maximum period of two months, instead the claim was raised on 16.11.2018 though the death took place on 14.05.2018, thus, it was raised beyond the aforesaid period of two months.

3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered on 11.03.2022 in SLP (C) No. 3978 of 2022 (The Oriental Insurance company Limited vs. Sanjesh & Anr.) to contend that such a condition in the scheme is hit by Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the said case. The said judgement has been rendered in respect of the same scheme albeit involving another Insurance Company i.e. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, as, it is the law of land, therefore, in view of this judgment, the decision of the District Level Committee cannot be sustained.

4. On being confronted, counsel for the New India Insurance Company Limited, Mr. Zafar Aziz could not dispute the fact that now there is a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as quoted hereinabove which covers the issue involved herein nor could the learned standing counsel.

5. We have perused the judgment of this Court at Allahabad dated 22.09.2021 rendered in Writ C No. 19071 of 2020 (The Oriential Insurance Company Limited, Muzaffarnagar vs. Smt. Sanjesh & Anr.) by which the writ petition of the Insurance Company challenging the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat on the ground of the claim being delayed was dismissed, against which the Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed the aforesaid SLP which has also been dismissed. The said judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 11.03.2022 (supra) reads as under:

"The sole arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim was not filed within a period of one month or extending condonable period of one month. We do not find any merit in the said arguments in view of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Act') which reads as under:-

"28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void.—

[Every agreement,—

(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal 2 proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or (b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.]"

In view of the aforesaid Section, the condition of lodging claim within a period of one month, extendable by another one month is contrary to Section 28 of the Act and thus void.

In view of the said fact, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of."

6. Although the judgment has been rendered at the SLP stage, but, it is a reasoned judgment, therefore, it contains a binding ratio.

7. In view of the above quoted judgment, the reason given for rejecting the claim of the petitioner i.e. delay, is not acceptable. The impugned decision is accordingly quashed. The District Level Committee is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner keeping in mind the judgment quoted hereinabove, on merits. The decision shall be taken with expedition, say, within a period of three months of receipt of certified copy of this order.

8. The writ petition is allowed

9. Similar petitions have been kept pending by this Court in view of p