Ashok Kumar v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.)

1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Raj, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no.2 & 3 and Mr. Dhruv Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.1.

2. Petition has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 12.01.2015 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow in PLA Case No.40 of 2014, (Ashok Kumar versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.).

3. It has been submitted that an agreement dated 19.11.2009 had been entered into between petitioner company and the State of U.P. to cover risk of accidental death of registered farmers owing agricultural land and being in the age group of 12 year's to 70 year's. The said policy was effected for one year from 19.11.2009.

4. It is submitted that in pursuance of the said agreement, the opposite parties filed their claim seeking compensation on account of death of the farmer, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the claimants/ opposite parties.

5. It is submitted that the said claim was rejected on the ground that the computerized khatauni was not submitted by the claimants although was required in terms of the agreement dated 19.11.2009. Learned counsel submits that in the proceedings before Lok Adalat, issues were framed pertaining to jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain the claim as well as issue pertaining to limitation apart from issue being framed on merits.

6. On the basis of instructions, learned counsel for petitioner does not press the findings recorded in impugned judgment pertaining to jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat of the issue of delay and submits that the dispute in question has already been adjudicated upon by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Abhishek Kumar & Ors.; Writ C No.1000840 of 2015 & other connected matters, which may be followed in the present case.

7. Learned counsel for opposite parties also on the basis of instructions admits that the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.07.2022 in the case of Abhishek Kumar (supra).

8. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.07.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case that the dispute raised therein also pertained to rejection of claim of the claimants therein on the ground of their not furnishing a computerized khatauni as required under Clause 4 of the agreement. The judgment thereafter adverts to Clause 4 of the said agreement as well as exclusions indicated under Clauses 17 & 24 of the agreement and records a finding that in terms of Clause 24 of the agreement, the agreement is required to be implemented so that the claims are accepted as a rule and are rejected as an exception in case the farmer dies of accidental death and if there is any short coming or deficiency in the documents filed, the Insurance Company itself would make an inspection for conforming the cause of death and shall make the payment accordingly. It is also indicated that the claims shall not be rejected or repudiated on mere technicalities. The relevant portions of the judgment is as follows: "15. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid clauses of the agreement, the position which emerges out is that by not providing the computerized khatauni will not take away the right of the claimants to get insurance amount as per the agreement. More particularly, in the present case, there is a specific finding regarding non providing of the computerized khatauni as the letter of the Board of Revenue dated 30.06.2010, wherein it has been informed that the consolidation proceedings were going on and computerized Khatauni could not be provided. The said findings have neither been disputed in the pleadings of the writ petitions nor urged as erroneous.

16. The genuineness of the khatauni on the record as provided by the private respondents under Clause 2 of the agreement had never been disputed. In the above circumstances, rejection of the claim would only be a technicality, which is not to be resorted to while dealing with such claims as in hand. Non furnishing of computerized Khautauni alone will not come in the way of the claim of farmers claimants, as this would be against the spirit of the beneficial agreement and reading of Clause 4 with other clauses of the agreement."

9. After recorded a finding with regard to the aforesaid clauses, the compensation awarded has thereafter been reduced on the following proposition: "18. In view of the discussions made above, it is found that there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat as far as accepting the insurance claims of the private respondents and hence, no interference is called for in the judgments impugned.

19. From the above discussion made hereinabove, the position with regard to the applicability of Clause 22(b) of the Agreement which emerges out is that as per Clause 4 of the agreement, the computerized khatauni was required for the purpose of the claim and hence it cannot be said that rejection of claim on the said ground is wholly illegal. As the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the quantifying the penalty by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.20736 of (M/S) 2018 and 5324 of (M/S) 2015, this Court has held that the penalty imposed as per Clause 22(b) of the Agreement is exorbitant and quantified the amount of penalty as Rs.50,000/- and 75,000/- respectively.

20. This Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the resultant delay would quantify the amount of penalty at Rs. 75,000/- and to this extent, the impugned judgments are modified. The amount of Rs.1 Lakh along with interest @9% per annum from the date of the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat as well as the amount of penalty of Rs.75,000/- to be deposited before the Permanent Lok Adalat within a period of six weeks and shall be released in favour of the opposite parties forthwith after due verification of their identities. If any amount was deposited earlier that shall be adjusted against the total amount to be paid by the petitioner- Insurance company in pursuance of the order passed today."

10. This Court does not find any occasion to take a view divergent from that already recorded in the case of Abhishek Kumar (supra). Considering aforesaid discussion, 11. impugned judgment and order is modified in terms of paragraph 20 of the judgment and order dated 29.07.2022 passed in the case of Abhishek Kumar (supra).

12. Opposite parties are directed to ensure payment to claimants within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon concerned authority.

13. The petition is therefore disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH SUBODH KUMAR SINGH SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Raj, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no.2 & 3 and Mr. Dhruv Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.1.

2. Petition has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 12.01.2015 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow in PLA Case No.40 of 2014, (Ashok Kumar versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.).

3. It has been submitted that an agreement dated 19.11.2009 had been entered into between petitioner company and the State of U.P. to cover risk of accidental death of registered farmers owing agricultural land and being in the age group of 12 year's to 70 year's. The said policy was effected for one year from 19.11.2009.

4. It is submitted that in pursuance of the said agreement, the opposite parties filed their claim seeking compensation on account of death of the farmer, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the claimants/ opposite parties.

5. It is submitted that the said claim was rejected on the ground that the computerized khatauni was not submitted by the claimants although was required in terms of the agreement dated 19.11.2009. Learned counsel submits that in the proceedings before Lok Adalat, issues were framed pertaining to jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain the claim as well as issue pertaining to limitation apart from issue being framed on merits.

6. On the basis of instructions, learned counsel for petitioner does not press the findings recorded in impugned judgment pertaining to jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat of the issue of delay and submits that the dispute in question has already been adjudicated upon by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Abhishek Kumar & Ors.; Writ C No.1000840 of 2015 & other connected matters, which may be followed in the present case.

7. Learned counsel for opposite parties also on the basis of instructions admits that the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.07.2022 in the case of Abhishek Kumar (supra).

8. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.07.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case that the dispute raised therein also pertained to rejection of claim of the claimants therein on the ground of their not furnishing a computerized khatauni as required under Clause 4 of the agreement. The judgment thereafter adverts to Clause 4 of the said agreement as well as exclusions indicated under Clauses 17 & 24 of the agreement and records a finding that in terms of Clause 24 of the agreement, the agreement is required to be implemented so that the claims are accepted as a rule and are rejected as an exception in case the farmer dies of accidental death and if there is any short coming or deficiency in the documents filed, the Insurance Company itself would make an inspection for conforming the cause of death and shall make the payment accordingly. It is also indicated that the claims shall not be rejected or repudiated on mere technicalities. The relevant portions of the judgment is as follows: "15. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid clauses of the agreement, the position which emerges out is that by not providing the computerized khatauni will not take away the right of the claimants to get insurance amount as per the agreement. More particularly, in the present case, there is a specific finding regarding non providing of the computerized khatauni as the letter of the Board of Revenue dated 30.06.2010, wherein it has been informed that the consolidation proceedings were going on and computerized Khatauni could not be provided. The said findings have neither been disputed in the pleadings of the writ petitions nor urged as erroneous.

16. The genuineness of the khatauni on the record as provided by the private respondents under Clause 2 of the agreement had never been disputed. In the above circumstances, rejection of the claim would only be a technicality, which is not to be resorted to while dealing with such claims as in hand. Non furnishing of computerized Khautauni alone will not come in the way of the claim of farmers claimants, as this would be against the spirit of the beneficial agreement and reading of Clause 4 with other clauses of the agreement."

9. After recorded a finding with regard to the aforesaid clauses, the compensation awarded has thereafter been reduced on the following proposition: "18. In view of the discussions made above, it is found that there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat as far as accepting the insurance claims of the private respondents and hence, no interference is called for in the judgments impugned.

19. From the above discussion made hereinabove, the position with regard to the applicability of Clause 22(b) of the Agreement which emerges out is that as per Clause 4 of the agreement, the computerized khatauni was required for the purpose of the claim and hence it cannot be said that rejection of claim on the said ground is wholly illegal. As the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the quantifying the penalty by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.20736 of (M/S) 2018 and 5324 of (M/S) 2015, this Court has held that the penalty imposed as per Clause 22(b) of the Agreement is exorbitant and quantified the amount of penalty as Rs.50,000/- and 75,000/- respectively.

20. This Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the resultant delay would quantify the amount of penalty at Rs. 75,000/- and to this extent, the impugned judgments are modified. The amount of Rs.1 Lakh along with interest @9% per annum from the date of the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat as well as the amount of penalty of Rs.75,000/- to be deposited before the Permanent Lok Adalat within a period of six weeks and shall be released in favour of the opposite parties forthwith after due verification of their identities. If any amount was deposited earlier that shall be adjusted against the total amount to be paid by the petitioner- Insurance company in pursuance of the order passed today."

10. This Court does not find any occasion to take a view divergent from that already recorded in the case of Abhishek Kumar (supra). Considering aforesaid discussion, 11. impugned judgment and order is modified in terms of paragraph 20 of the judgment and order dated 29.07.2022 passed in the case of Abhishek Kumar (supra).

12. Opposite parties are directed to ensure payment to claimants within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon concerned authority.

13. The petition is therefore disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH SUBODH KUMAR SINGH SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench