Gautam Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.)
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157164-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24804 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ram Kali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dan Bahadur Yadav,Brij Raj Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
Legal Reasoning
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being widow of the deceased is entitled to get compensation towards the insurance claim under the aforesaid Scheme. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Writ C No.15983 of 2020 (Gautam Yadav vs. State of UP and 3 others), 2020(11) ADJ 321, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has considered the period of limitation for the purpose of filing claim and it was held that, "limitation provided under the said scheme is unreasonable and arbitrary and have substituted the said period by a period of three years". Relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced hereinafter:- "We have no hesitation in holding that the limitation prescribed under the Scheme is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary and is liable to be struck out as it is well settled that even while testing the validity of an administrative action, the same can be tested on the touch stone of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A ''socio-beneficial' Scheme has to be interpreted in a manner so as to advance the purpose for which the Scheme is formulated and not in a manner so as to defeat the entire purpose of the Scheme.
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:- "(i) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 12.10.2021 (Annexure No.12) passed by respondent no.5 and order dated 2.2.2023 (Annexure No.15) passed by District Level Committee headed by District Magistrate, Pilibhit /respondent no.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected under the scheme of Mukhya Mantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Beema Yojana on the ground of limitation. (ii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to 5 to provide the benefit to the petitioner under the scheme of Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Beema Yojana, treating the application of the petitioner within time as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court dated 11.11.2020 passed in Writ (C) No.15983 of 2023 (Gautam Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.) (Annexure No.17)." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner Lala Ram was a poor farmer having an agricultural land in his name i.e. plot no.283/0.559, 1505/0.796 and 506/0.060 hect. situated in the Vilage Garha Kala, Tehsil Pooranpur, Distt. Pilibhit. He was 65 years old and died on 15.8.2019 due to falling into the well after being attacked by bull. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a claim petition on 21.10.2019 along with requisite documents to the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Puranpur for grant of compensation under the scheme known as "Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Beema Yojana" (in short "the Scheme in question"). On 2.11.2019 the SDM forwarded the claim petition along with entire relevant documents to respondent no.5 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) for payment of compensation to the petitioner under the Scheme in question. The claim was received in the office of Insurance Company on 2.11.2019. On 12.11.2019 the District Magistrate, Pilibhit again forwarded the claim petition to respondent no.5. It is alleged that inspite of receiving the claim petition dated 21.10.2019 on 2.11.2019 the respondent no.5 did not pay compensation to the petitioner under the Scheme in question. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application on 28.9.2020 before the District Magistrate, Pilibhit for her grievance. Eventually, the respondent no.5 vide impugned order dated 12.10.2021 had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of limitation stating therein that according to the scheme the claim petition should be filed within three months from the date of death. The husband of the petitioner died on 15.8.2019 and the claim petition dated 12.11.2019 had been received from the office of District Magistrate, Pilibhit on 29.11.2019, which is beyond prescribed period of three months and as such the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved with the order dated 12.10.2021, the petitioner preferred Writ-C No.7769 of 2022 (Ramkali v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was disposed of on 29.3.2022 directing the District Magistrate to place the matter before the District Level Committee for taking decision in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 8.4.2022 to the District Magistrate, Pilibhit praying for complying the order dated 29.3.2022 and claiming compensation under the Scheme in question. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Pilibhit constituted District Level Committee, which submitted the impugned report dated 2.2.2023 to the District Magistrate rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of limitation.
Decision
Thus, we set aside the order dated Nil March, 2020 (Annexure-9), whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of limitation on both grounds as raised and discussed in this Judgment. We further direct that in place of Limitation Prescribed under the Scheme, it should be read that the claims made within three years of the date of the death or within three years from the date of the rejection, either wholly or partly by the Insurance Company, to be a reasonable period for filing a claim under the 'Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima Scheme' and the similar schemes which were in force prior thereto on behalf of beneficiaries of the Scheme. As innumerable cases are filed seeking compensation under the schemes across the State, we direct that all the claims filed within a period of three years from the date of the death or within a period of three years from the date of rejection of claim, either partly or wholly by the Insurance Company, should be treated to be filed within limitation and should be processed on their merits. As we have held that the limitation provided under the said Scheme is unreasonable and arbitrary and have substituted the said period by a period of three years, as recorded above, we direct the Registrar General of this Court to transmit a copy of this order to The Chief Secretary State of Uttar Pradesh and Director Institutional Finance,State of Uttar Pradesh ,for its communication to all the District Magistrates in the State and the District Magistrates in turn are directed to entertain and process the claims filed under the Scheme within limitation as prescribed above by this Court treating them to be within limitation and the same should be processed on their merits. We have directed and provided for the limitation of three years, till the time the State Government takes an appropriate decision and amends limitation clauses of the Scheme to make them more reasonable taking into account the socio economic condition of the society as well the laws of India. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the said order. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur shall now process the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law on its merits treating the same to be within limitation and the same shall be processed expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the copy of this order." 5. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that rightful order has been passed by the Authority concerned as admittedly the claim is set up by the petitioner with delay of three months. The decision passed in Gautam Yadav (supra) is stayed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7647/2021 by order dated 12.08.2021, though the payment was made by the Insurance Company and as such, no interference is required in the matter. 6. We have occasion to peruse the record in question and find that husband of the petitioner died on 15.8.2019 and the claim petition dated 12.11.2019 had been received from the office of District Magistrate, Pilibhit on 29.11.2019 after the period of three months and the same was rejected by the respondents by the orders impugned on the ground of delay. Clause-10 of the policy provides that the claim petition may be filed in the concerned Tehsil within a period of 45 days. In exceptional circumstances, the District Magistrate has powers to extend the period upto one month and no application shall be considered after a delay of 75 days. Policy itself provides condonation of delay upto one month even after the limitation came to an end and therefore, the delay is just more than one month. There is no clause in the Policy, which specifically bar the consideration of claim by Court concerned even beyond the period of 75 days. 7. We have also occasion to peruse the judgment and order of this Court dated 22.9.2021 passed in Writ C No.19071 of 2020 (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Muzaffarnagar vs. Smt. Sanjesh and 2 others), wherein, the Insurance Company had challenged the order dated January 4, 2020 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Muzaffarnagar, whereby the claim of Smt. Sanjesh, was allowed and Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.5 lacs to Smt Sanjesh under the "Mukhyamanti Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna" and the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 22.9.2021. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited had assailed the said judgement dated 22.09.2021 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).3978/2022 (the Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Sanjesh & another) 2022 LiveLaw (SC)303 and Hon'ble Supreme Court had proceeded to dismiss the SLP on 11.03.2022 on the ground that the condition of lodging claim within a period of one month, extendable by another one month is contrary to Section 28 of the the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and thus void. Relevant part of the order is reproduced herein below:- "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 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." 8. Considering the facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of judgments in Gautam Yadav's case (supra) and Sanjesh's case (supra). 9. The writ petition stands partly allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 4.8.2023 SP/ Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad