Dismissed

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Manager,Pratapgarh Thru. Manager Regional Office,Lucknow v. State of U.P. Thru. Director General Institutional Finance,External Aided Projects,Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023/4822/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matter under Article 227, the High Court dismissed the petitioner-insurance company's petition challenging an award by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The Court held that dependency issues were not framed or objected to, and a prior Division Bench judgment rendered the award binding, finding no merit in the challenge.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging the Permanent Lok Adalat order is dismissed; no order as to costs.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:63118

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4822 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Manager,Pratapgarh Thru. Manager Regional Office,Lucknow Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Director General Institutional Finance,External Aided Projects,Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Maneesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Maneesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, by means of which the amount of Rs.5 lac has been awarded to respondent Nos.3 to 5 under the Samajwadi Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojana (herein-after referred to as Kisan Bima Yojana) on account of death of their mother.

¶8

The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the opposite party Nos.3 and 4 were married at the time of death of their mother and respondent No.5 has also two wheeler service station, therefore, they cannot be treated as dependent of the deceased and entitle for the compensation, but without considering it the impugned order has been passed, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this was not the issue before the Permanent Lok Adalat because only three issues were framed and the family or the dependency of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 was not in issue, therefore, it was not made an issue and it has never been objected by the petitioner, therefore, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner cannot argue it. He further submits that the issue of family and dependency along with other issues have already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.21066 of 2020 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Uma Devi and 2 others) by means of the judgement and order dated 25.01.2021.

¶10

He further submits that the Division Bench of this Court has also observed that the insurance company is bound by the terms

¶11

of contract of insurance, therefore it should have adhered to the litigation policy and should have acted fairly and as a responsible litigant and in that case the Court has mentioned that the filing of the present writ petition shows that the petitioner has not only dis-respected the insurance contract between it and the State-Government but also acted unfairly against the rights of the claimant. This is the case herein in the present case also.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that on account of death of the mother of respondent Nos.3 to 5, the claim under the Kisan Bima Yojana was rejected by the petitioner, therefore, they had approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, in which after exchange of pleadings the following issues were framed:-

¶13

"1- क्यया ययाचचीगण ययाचचकया कके अचभिकथनोሪ कके आधयार पर ममु० पयाच लयाख रूपयया चविपकची सके पयानके कके अधधकयारची हह , यचदि हय ा ततो ्ቚभियावि ?

¶14

2- क्यया रयाज्य सरकयार वि बचीमया कम्पनची कके मध्य सम्पयाचदित अनमुबन्ध बचीमया कम्पनची पर बयाध्यकयारची हह , यचदि हय ा ततो ्ቚभियावि ?

¶15

3- क्यया ययाचची चकसची अन्य उपषम कतो पयानके कके अधधकयारची हह , यचदि हय ा ततो ्ቚभियावि ?"

¶16

The aforesaid issues made by the Permanent Lok Adalat indicates that issue of family and dependency were never raised before the Permanent Lok Adalat, therefore, no such issue was framed. The petitioner had also not raised any objections to the issues made by the Permanent Lok Adalat. It is also not the case of the petitioner. Only case set up by the petitioner is that respondent Nos.3 and 4 were married and respondent No.5 was running a two wheeler service station. This plea has been taken in paragraph 12 of the petition, but it is not denied that they were not dependent on the deceased. The issue of bread earner and head of the family have been considered by the Permanent Lok Adalat on the basis of pleadings and evidence and recorded the findings, which is extracted here-in-below :-

¶17

" पतयाविलची पर उपलब्ध सयाቌኚय सके यह स्प्ቖ हह चक , ममृतकया रयाज कमुमयारची ककी सड़क दिमुररटनया मम ममृत्यमु हतो चमुककी हह। ममृतकया कके नयाम 0.063 हके० भिभूचम थची। यह भिची स्प्ቖ हह चक , ममृतकया ककी ममृत्यमु सके पभूविर उसकके पचत ककी ममृत्यमु हतो चमुककी थची। फलस्विरूप नकल खततौनची मम ममृतकया कया नयाम भिची दिजर हतो चमुकया थया। ममृतकया रयाज कमुमयारची कके ममृत्यमु उपरयान्त ययाचचीगण चविजय कमुमयार , अजय कमुमयार वि ससंजय कमुमयार कया नयाम भिची दिजर हतो चमुकया हह। इस्ቚ कयार ममृतकया रयाज कमुमयारची कतो कमृषक तथया रतोजची अजरक वि ममुधखयया हतोनके कके तथ्य सके इनकयार नहीሻ चकयया जया सकतया हह। इस ्ቚकयार चविपकची बचीमया कम्पनची ककी तरफ सके उठयायके गयके यह तकर बलहचीन हह चक ममृतकया रयाज कमुमयारची कमृषक , रतोजची अजरक वि ममुधखयया नहीሻ थची।्ቚ

¶18

स्तमुत मयामलके मम ययाचची ककी तरफ सके धजलया स्तरचीय कमकेटची कया ्ቚस्तयावि कयागज ससंख्यया 15 ग 1 लगयायत 15 ग 1 / 5 भिची ्ቚस्तमुत चकयया गयया हह धजसमम सचमचत दयारया यह चनणरय धलयया गयया हह चक , ममृतकया रयाज कमुमयारची पत्नची स्वि 0 हरचीकमृष्ण गयाम बसतोय ( विचीरभि्ቖपमुर ) भिटनची , पतोस्ट भिटनची , तहसचील लयालगसंज , जनपदि ्ቚतयापगढ

¶19

ककी ममृत्यमु चदिनयासंक 07.10.2017 कतो सडक दिमुररटनया सके हहई हह। पररवियार ककी ममुधखयया रतोजची अजरक मयानतके हहए ययाचची ययाचचीगण चविजय कमुमयार , अजय कमुमयार वि ससंजय कमुमयार कतो वियाररस करयार दिकेतके हहए परचीकणतोपरन्त दियाविया कतो स्विचीकयार हतोनया पयायया। इस ्ቚकयार एक चनष्पक सचमचत ककी परचीकणतोपरयान्त स्विचीकमृत चकए गए दियाविया कतो ससंशय ककी पररधध मम रखके जयानके कया कतोई न्ययायतोचचत आधयार नहीሻ हह। चकन्तमु सचमचत कके उ्ሹ चनणरय कतो न मयाननके मम न्ययाययालय कके चविचयार सके बचीमया कम्पनची दयारया भिभूल ककी गयची हह।

¶20

इसची ्ቚकयार आयमु्ሹ एसंवि सचचवि रयाजस्वि पररषदि उ०्ቚ० अनमुभियाग -18, लखनऊ कके पत ससंख्यया आर - 591/16-99 जची /

¶21

ममु० चक०स०बची०यतो० / 2018- बजट चदिनयासंक 01 जनविरची 2019 कके ्ቚस्तर -4 मम उचቤኌधखत चकयया गयया हह चक धजलया स्तरचीय सचमचत दयारया धलयया गयया चनणरय सम्बनन्धत बचीमया कम्पनची पर बयाध्यकयारची हतोगया। अतत न्ययाययालय इस चनष्कषर पर पहहाሺचतची हह चक बचीमया कम्पनची सके बचीमया रयाचश ममु० पयाच लयाख रूपयके ययाचचीगण पयानके कके अधधकयारची हह।

¶22

इसची ्ቚकयार कके मयामलके मम मयाननचीय उच्च न्ययाययालय इलयाहयाबयादि ककी रर०चप० स० ररट - सची नम्बर 21066 / 2020 ओररयण्टल इसंश्यतोरकेस कम्पनची धल० बनयाम उमया दिकेविची आचदि मम चदिनयासंक 25.01.2021 मम यह धसदयान्त्ቚ चतपयाचदित चकयया हह चक धजलया स्तरचीय कमकेटची ककी ररपतोटर बयाध्यकयारची हह। वितरमयान मयामलके मम यहची दृ्ቖयासंत पभूणर रूप सके लयागभू हतोगया।

¶23

अतत उपलब्ध सयाቌኚय कके आधयार पर नहसचगरक धसदयान्तोሪ कतो दृच्ቖगत रखतके न्ययाययालय इस चनष्कषर पर पहहाሺचतची हह चक ययाचची बचीमया कम्पनची सके विचीमया रयाचश ममु० पयासंच लयाख रूपयके ्ቚया्቎ करनके कया अधधकयारची हह। तदिनमुसयार अविधयायर चविन्दिमु ससंख्यया 1 वि 2 ययाचचीगण कके पक मम एवि चविपकची ससंख्यया -1 कके चविरूद चनणቓኍत चकयया जयातया हह। "

¶24

In view of above, it is also apparent that District Level Committee had found the claim of respondent Nos.3 to 5 genuine, but the petitioner-insurance company had denied the same. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgement rendered in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Uma Devi and 2 others has held that the decision of the District Level Committee headed by the District Magistrate has binding effect.

¶25

In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and not tenable and the impugned order dated 01.03.2023 has rightly been passed in accordance with law on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence on record, which does not require any interference by this Court. The writ petition is misconceived and lacks merit, which is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶27

Order Date :- 3.10.2023 Ashutosh Pandey

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Manager,Pratapgarh Thru. Manager Regional Office,Lucknow v. State of U.P. Thru. Director General Institutional Finance,External Aided Projects,Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Manager,Pratapgarh Thru. Manager Regional Office,Lucknow v. State of U.P. Thru. Director General Institutional Finance,External Aided Projects,Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Kumar Singh Vs Honble Court of Addl. Principal Judge, Court No. 6, Family Court, Lko. and Another

Anil Mahendru and 2 Others Vs Judge Small Cause Court No. 18 Lko and 2 Others

Mamta Yadav Vs Principal Judge Family Court Lko. and Another

Raghav Ram @ Raghav Ram Yadav Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and 4 Others

Dr. Mohammad Seraj Ansari Vs M/S Deora Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Lko Thru. Its Director and 2 Others

Swati Agarwal and 3 Others Vs Board of Revenue,U.P., Allahabad Thru. Registrar and 6 Others