Disposed

Aradhana Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2023WRIC/32768/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking ex-gratia payment of Rs.40 lakh for petitioner's husband's death. The court found that Rs.30 lakh had already been released as per the policy schedule and was not inclined to proceed further.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of. No further claim for Rs.40 lakh was entertained beyond the admitted Rs.30 lakh release.

Aradhana Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Insurance | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:228497-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32768 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Aradhana Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bratendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anubhav Sinha,Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Satish Chaturvedi,Vipul Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for State Bank of India and Shri Anubhav Srivastava, learned counsel for United India Insurance Company Ltd.

¶7

Present writ petition is preferred with a prayer to command the State Bank of India-respondent no.3 to pay the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the petitioner, as per agreement dated 18.11.2019 and 30.09.2021 taken place between the Police Department and the respondent Bank, due to death of petitioner's husband (CP 365/052491072 Udayveer Singh) in a road accident.

¶8

The entire claim has been set up on the basis of recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri, wherein, request has been made to the State Bank of India for giving an ex-gratia payment of Rs.40 lakhs in the light of the policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that once the Competent Authority has already passed an order and made a request to the Insurance Company for disbursal of the said amount, the same cannot be altered to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Company has placed the Insurance policy and placed reliance on Schedule (1), which deals with the 'Details of the coverage', wherein, Clause 2(i) provides for PAI (death) Cover. He submits that as per the policy the payment can only be made upto Rs.30 lakhs and admittedly the said amount has already been released.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to proceed further in the matter as admittedly as per

¶11

Clause 2(i) of Schedule (1) the amount of Rs.30 lakhs is released in favour of petitioner.

¶12

The writ petition is disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 2.12.2023 A. Pandey

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aradhana Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aradhana Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinku @ Vijay Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Devendra Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Manjoj Kumar Paswan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradeep Kumar Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and 2 Others

Deepak Verma and Another Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 2 Others

M/S Jagdamba Filling Station and Another Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and 3 Others