Partly allowed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Senior Div.Manager v. State of U.P.Thru Dir.General Institutional Finance and Ors.

Allahabad HC14 May 2025A227/8950/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer challenged a permanent lok adalat award under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Servahit Bima Yojna, arguing only the head of family was insurable. The court held bread earners beyond the head of family were covered, upheld the Rs.5 lakh compensation with 9% interest, but set aside the weekly penalty as beyond the adalat's powers.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Senior Div.Manager Vs State… — Insurance | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28255

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8950 of 2020

¶4

Petitioner :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Senior Div.Manager Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Dir.General Institutional Finance And Ors.

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vashu Deo Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajeet Kumar,Arvind Kumar,Rinku Verma

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

C.M. Application No.125917 of 2021

¶8

The present application has been filed seeking substitution of legal heirs of respondent No.3.

¶9

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that apart from heirs shown as 3/2, all the other heirs are the legal heirs of respondent No.3.

¶10

The substitution application is allowed.

¶11

Respondent No.3 shall be substituted by the persons shown as 3/1, 3/3, 3/4 and 3/5 in paragraph 3 of the application.

¶12

Let necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day.

¶13

Order on Petition

¶14

The present petition has been filed challenging the award dated 19.12.2019 passed by permanent lok adalat whereby an amount of Rs.5/- Lakh has been awarded in favour of the respondents, which has been directed to be paid alongwith the penalty of Rs.1,000/- per week and interest at the rate of 9% has been awarded.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of the insurance, which was done in pursuance to scheme of the State Government known as Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Servahit Bima Yojna, the persons who were insured were head of the family/bread earner and as the deceased was not the head of the family, no claim ought to have been paid on account of death of the deceased. In support of the said submission, a family register has been filed showing that the deceased was not the head of the family. In the light of the said document it is argued that no claim of compensation could have been awarded under

¶16

the scheme.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the terms of the scheme, which provide that the family would mean the head of the family/bread earner (policy holder) and in the event of death of the said persons, the family would be entitled to payment of compensation. He further argues that the intent of the scheme, which is reflected from the scheme itself, is to provide compensation to the families where the head of the family has expired/suffered disability so that the family may not suffer. In the light of the said, he argues that the terms and conditions of the agreement have to be seen in terms of the intent of the scheme, which aims to grant compensation to the families only in the event of death of the head of the family.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that before the permanent lok adalat, a proposal was given for settlement of the case on payment of Rs.5/- Lakh, which was not accepted and the permanent lok adalat by means of the impugned order has not only awarded a sum of Rs.5/- Lakh but has proceeded to impose penalty and has granted interest at the rate of 9%, which according to the petitioner is a very heavy interest.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court Dated 09.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.13240 (MB) of 2019 (Ram Piyare v. State of U.P. & Ors.) . In the light of the said, counsel for the petitioner argues that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order impugned is liable to be quashed.

¶20

Considering the submissions made at the Bar and on perusal of the terms and conditions of the agreement it is clear that the definition of family as defined under the agreement includes the head of the family/bread earner. In the light of the said specific clause contained in the agreement, the first submission of counsel for the petitioner that the scheme is only confined to the death of the head of the family needs to be rejected.

¶21

At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner argues that it is only the head of the family who can be treated to be bread earner in terms of the provision of the agreement. The said argument also vanishes inasmuch as in the agreement itself, "the head of the family/bread earner" has been mentioned and thus, the said argument is not worthy of any acceptance.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner also argues that in compliance of agreement dated 14.09.2016, the petitioner Insurance Company has issued insurance policy dated 30.09.2016 for the period 14.09.2016 to 13.09.2017. In the

¶23

insurance policy also it is specifically mentioned that the policy was issued for 31,77,814/- persons and composition of family has also been clearly mentioned in the Insurance Policy in which it is mentioned that "Head of the family/bread earner (Male/Female), husband/wife of head of the family/bread earner, unmarried daughter, dependent son, dependent parents of unmarried son (where unmarried person is head of the family/bread earner), dependent parents of head of the family/bread earner (only in cases where husband is the head of the family), shall be considered as family members under the scheme.

¶24

The said argument also merits rejection as even as per the submission of counsel for the petitioner, bread earner, including male or female of the family, would be covered under the benefits of the scheme.

¶25

In the present case, the unmarried brother of the claimant died due to drowning. He was the brother of the claimant and was engaged in agricultural activity, which is itself revealed from the averments contained in the claim petition. The submission that only the head of the family can be termed as a bread earner would militate against the terms of the agreement as it is common knowledge that the bread earner can be other than the head of the family also on which the family is dependent. The insurance has been done under a scheme, the aim of which is to grant socio-economic benefits to the under privileged class. Socio-economic benefits flowing out of the schemes have to be interpreted to give a meaning which is expansive and not a restrictive meaning as is being pleaded by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

The amount awarded on account of death is clearly in consonance with the clause under the scheme, however, an amount of Rs.1,000/- per week imposed as a penalty is neither under the scheme nor is within the power of the permanent lok adalat to grant the same, thus, to that extent the award dated 24.08.2020 needs to be set aside.

¶27

In view of the findings recorded above, the writ petition is disposed off holding that the awarded dated 19.12.2019 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow in P.L.A. Case No.383 of 2017 (Mansukh vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others) (Annexure - 1) shall be confined to payment of Rs.5 Lakh as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% as has been awarded by the permanent lok adalat.

¶28

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Ashutosh

¶29

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

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Senior Div.Manager v. State of U.P.Thru Dir.General Institutional Finance and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Senior Div.Manager v. State of U.P.Thru Dir.General Institutional Finance and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Manish Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Sweksha Pandey vs Shivam Dixit

Roop Naryan Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Magan Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Sant Ram Vs Housing Commissioner U.P. Awas Ewan Vikas Parishad Lko. andORS