# Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 126
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-15
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 27 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/oriental-insurance-co-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49864
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Insurance Law - Compensation - Claim
for compensation, which is the basic cause
of action, arises only upon death of the
insured. As such the issue of accident
which precedes death of the insured is
only
a
condition
precedent
for
the
purposes of entertainability of the claim
and it is only death of insured arising from
an accident which gives rise to cause of
action
to
nominee/legal
heir of
the
insured.

A perusal of Part-I of the agreement dated
14.09.2016 makes it evident that in case of
death arising out of an accident pertaining to
Head/Bread Earner of a family during course of
insurance
policy/scheme,
the
Insurance
Company is required to compensate the
nominee/legal heirs of deceased to the tune of
Rs.5,00,000/-. The stipulation also indicates that
the death should have occasioned during the
course of insurance scheme. (Para 10, 11)

In the present case, it is apparent that although
accident has occurred prior to enforcement of
the scheme on 14.09.2016 but the death of the
insured, late Usman Khan has occurred on
17.09.2016 which was after enforcement of the
insurance scheme on 14.09.2016. Clearly, the
nominees/legal heirs of the deceased were
entitled to maintain a claim in accordance with
the scheme since death has occasioned during
the
subsistence
of
agreement
dated
14.09.2016. To that effect, the claim of
opposite parties 3 to 6 was wrongly rejected by
the Insurance Company. (Para 12)

B. Double Jeopardy - When claim is made
in terms of mutually agreed and binding
contract, it is only the conditions of
contract which are adhered to without
imposition of extraneous considerations.
As such, once a penalty is clearly indicated
under the contract for a party to fulfill in case of
breach of contract, it is only that penalty which
can be imposed and in the considered opinion of
this Court, no further penalty or costs can be
imposed which is beyond the terms and
conditions of such contract. (Para 18)

Agreement dated 14.09.2016 provides for
imposition of penalty upon the Insurance
Company in case payment is not made to
claimant in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the agreement. It appears
that earlier an amount of Rs.2500/- per week
had been imposed as penalty, which was
subsequently reduced to Rs.1,000/- per week.
(Para 14)
4 All. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
127
By means of impugned order, while the
Permanent
Lok
Adalat
has
imposed
the
aforesaid penalty, at the same time interest at
the rate of 9% has also been imposed upon the
Insurance Company. It is apparent that neither
any statutory provision has been indicated for
grant of interest nor does agreement dated
14.09.2016 stipulate grant of any interest. As
such, grant of interest over and above the
penalty clearly amounts not only to
Double Jeopardy but unjust enrichment
and is unsustainable. (Para 16, 19)

Writ petition partly allowed. Order dated
27.12.2019 is set aside only to the extent
of grant of interest on the claimed
amount. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

Shameena Khatoon & ors. Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors., PLA Case No. 15 of
2018 (Para 22)

Present petition challenges the order
dated
27.12.2019,
passed
by
the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow whereby
the claim of private parties for seeking
compensation in terms of the Mukhya
Mantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna has
been allowed.

## Text

126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
समय करायी गयी है अथवा नहीं। इस पर पक्षगण मौन रहे। सहायक भडवष्य
डनडध आयुक्त ने भी यह उडल्लडखत डकया है डक प्रवतिन अडधकाररयों द्वारा
कोई भी ररकािि जााँच के डलए प्रस्तुत नहीं डकया गया।

12 मेरे द्वारा गहन अध्ययन करने पर यह पाया गया डक सहायक
भडवष्य डनडध ' आयुक्त द्वारा धारा 7-ए में एवं अपीलीय डरब्यूनल द्वारा
अपना कोई सुस्पष्ट आदेश इस डबन्दु पर पाररत नहीं डकया है तथा उक्त के
अभाव में वतिमान डववाद का डनस्तारण डकया गया है।

 आदेश

13. अतः सेवायोजक द्वारा प्रस्तुत वतिमान याडचका आंडशक रूप
से स्वीकार करते हुए आदेश डदनााँक 03.08.2010 एवं
02.12.2002 को डनरस्त डकया जाता है और प्रकरण प्रडतवादी संख्या
2, सहायक भडवष्य डनडध आयुक्त को इस डनदेश के साथ वापस डकया
जाता है। वह आदेश की प्राडप्त के 6 माह के अन्दर पक्षों को सुनवाई का
अवसर देते हुये साक्ष्यों (डलडखत व मौडखक), के आधार पर मुखर आदेश
पाररत करें। याडचका में पाररत अन्तररम आदेश डदनांक 30.08.2011
द्वारा जमा की गयी धनराडश अडन्तम डनणिय तक डवपक्षी संख्या 01 के पास
सुरडक्षत रहेगी।
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 126
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 27 of 2021

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anchal Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rinku Verma

A. Insurance Law - Compensation - Claim
for compensation, which is the basic cause
of action, arises only upon death of the
insured. As such the issue of accident
which precedes death of the insured is
only
a
condition
precedent
for
the
purposes of entertainability of the claim
and it is only death of insured arising from
an accident which gives rise to cause of
action
to
nominee/legal
heir of
the
insured.

A perusal of Part-I of the agreement dated
14.09.2016 makes it evident that in case of
death arising out of an accident pertaining to
Head/Bread Earner of a family during course of
insurance
policy/scheme,
the
Insurance
Company is required to compensate the
nominee/legal heirs of deceased to the tune of
Rs.5,00,000/-. The stipulation also indicates that
the death should have occasioned during the
course of insurance scheme. (Para 10, 11)

In the present case, it is apparent that although
accident has occurred prior to enforcement of
the scheme on 14.09.2016 but the death of the
insured, late Usman Khan has occurred on
17.09.2016 which was after enforcement of the
insurance scheme on 14.09.2016. Clearly, the
nominees/legal heirs of the deceased were
entitled to maintain a claim in accordance with
the scheme since death has occasioned during
the
subsistence
of
agreement
dated
14.09.2016. To that effect, the claim of
opposite parties 3 to 6 was wrongly rejected by
the Insurance Company. (Para 12)

B. Double Jeopardy - When claim is made
in terms of mutually agreed and binding
contract, it is only the conditions of
contract which are adhered to without
imposition of extraneous considerations.
As such, once a penalty is clearly indicated
under the contract for a party to fulfill in case of
breach of contract, it is only that penalty which
can be imposed and in the considered opinion of
this Court, no further penalty or costs can be
imposed which is beyond the terms and
conditions of such contract. (Para 18)

Agreement dated 14.09.2016 provides for
imposition of penalty upon the Insurance
Company in case payment is not made to
claimant in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the agreement. It appears
that earlier an amount of Rs.2500/- per week
had been imposed as penalty, which was
subsequently reduced to Rs.1,000/- per week.
(Para 14)
4 All. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
127
By means of impugned order, while the
Permanent
Lok
Adalat
has
imposed
the
aforesaid penalty, at the same time interest at
the rate of 9% has also been imposed upon the
Insurance Company. It is apparent that neither
any statutory provision has been indicated for
grant of interest nor does agreement dated
14.09.2016 stipulate grant of any interest. As
such, grant of interest over and above the
penalty clearly amounts not only to
Double Jeopardy but unjust enrichment
and is unsustainable. (Para 16, 19)

Writ petition partly allowed. Order dated
27.12.2019 is set aside only to the extent
of grant of interest on the claimed
amount. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

Shameena Khatoon & ors. Vs The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors., PLA Case No. 15 of
2018 (Para 22)

Present petition challenges the order
dated
27.12.2019,
passed
by
the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow whereby
the claim of private parties for seeking
compensation in terms of the Mukhya
Mantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna has
been allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioner, learned State Counsel for
opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr. Rinku
Verma, learned counsel for opposite parties
3 to 6.

2. Petition has been filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India
challenging order dated 27.12.2019 passed
in PLA Case No.15 of 2018 by the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Lucknow whereby
claim of private opposite parties for
seeking compensation in terms of the
Mukhya Mantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima
Yojna has been allowed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that aforesaid scheme of the State
Government was floated in which various
insurance companies were a party to the
memorandum of understanding for the
purposes
of
providing
services
for
implementation of the said insurance
scheme for indemnifying farmers of the
State from accident and death arising
therefrom.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that agreement was entered into
between the petitioner-company and the
State on 14.09.2016. It is further submitted
that the said scheme was to be implemented
with effect from the date it was entered into
and as per provisions of the scheme, in case
of death arising out of an accident
pertaining to head of family/bread earner of
family
during
the
operation
of
the
agreement, the insurance company was
bound to make compensation at the rate of
R.5,00,000/- to the nominee/legal heir.

5. It is submitted that in the present
case, admittedly the predecessor in interest
of opposite parties 3 to 6, Late Usman
Khan was involved in an accident on
12.09.2016 and as a result thereof, passed
away on 17.09.2016. It has been
submitted that upon claim being made by
legal heirs of Late Usman Khan, the same
was rejected by the insurance company on
23.02.2017 on the ground that accident
resulting in death of Late Usman Khan took
place on 12.09.2016, which was prior to
enforcement
of
agreement
dated
14.09.2016. As such, the said incident was
not covered within the insurance period.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that since the cause of action, i.e.
the accident occurred on 12.09.2016, which
was prior to enforcement of insurance
128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
agreement dated 14.09.2016, the claim of
answering opposite parties has been rightly
rejected. It is further submitted that the
date of death of Late Usman Khan would
be totally immaterial since cause of action
has accrued to answering opposite party
due to the accident which took place on
12.09.2016. Learned counsel has also
adverted to the fact that by means of
impugned order, the petitioner-insurance
company has been put to double jeopardy
since penalty amounting to Rs.1,000/- per
week as provided in the agreement has
been imposed along with interest at the rate
of 9% per annum, which could not have
been done since award of interest is beyond
the stipulations indicated in agreement
dated 14.09.2016.

7. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of opposite parties 3 to 6 has refuted
the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for petitioner with the submission
that
a
perusal
of
agreement
dated
14.09.2016 makes it evident that claim for
compensation
in
terms
of
aforesaid
insurance scheme arises from the date of
death of an insured and not from the date of
accident and as such cause of action will
accrue from the date of death and not from
the date of accident as is being submitted
by learned counsel for petitioner. Learned
counsel has also adverted to Part-I of the
agreement dated 14.09.2016 to indicate the
specific provision with regard to same.

8. With regard to double jeopardy, it
is
submitted
that
agreement
dated
14.09.2016 itself stipulates grant of penalty
in case compensation is not made upon
claim being made under the scheme. It is
submitted that the grant of penalty is an
issue separate from grant of interest which
is awarded in terms of the Interest Act,
1978.

9. Upon consideration of submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perusal of material on record, the two
questions requiring adjudication, are as
under:-

(i) Whether cause of action would
accrue to a claimant under the scheme from
the date of accident or from the date of
death as a result of accident?

(ii) Whether award of interest in
addition to penalty indicated in the
agreement amounts to double jeopardy?

Question No.(i) : Whether cause
of action would accrue to a claimant
under the scheme from the date of
accident or from the date of death as a
result of accident?

10. With regard to question no.(i), a
perusal of Part-I of the agreement dated
14.09.2016 makes it evident that in case of
death arising out of an accident pertaining
to Head/Bread Earner of a family during
course of insurance policy/scheme, the
Insurance
Company
is
required
to
compensate the nominee/legal heirs of
deceased to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. The
relevant provision reads as under:-

"nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q& ;fn nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k
ifjokj ds eqf[k;k@jksVh vtZd dh e`R;q chek vof/k ds
nkSjku gks tkrh gS rks chek dEiuh lEiw.kZ chfer jkf'k
:0 5-00 yk[k dk Hkqxrku ukfeuh@dkuwuh okfj'k dks
djsxhA"

11. Evidently, although as per
aforesaid clause, accident from which death
has occasioned is an essential ingredient for
fulfilling the claim of compensation as per
insurance scheme, a reading of the said
provision makes it evident that cause of
action for filing a claim for compensation
arises only in case of death due to a
previous accident. The stipulation also
4 All. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
129
indicates that the death should have
occasioned during the course of insurance
scheme. As such, a bare reading of the
provision makes it evident that claim for
compensation, which is the basic cause of
action, arises only upon death of the
insured. As such the issue of accident
which precedes death of the insured is only
a condition precedent for the purposes of
entertainability of the claim and it is only
death of insured arising from an accident
which gives rise to cause of action to
nominee/legal heir of the insured.

12. In the present case, it is apparent
that although accident has occurred prior to
enforcement of the scheme on 14.09.2016
but the death of the insured, late Usman
Khan has occurred on 17.09.2016 which
was after enforcement of the insurance
scheme on 14.09.2016. Clearly, the
nominees/legal heirs of the deceased were
entitled to maintain a claim in accordance
with the scheme since death has occasioned
during the subsistence of agreement dated
14.09.2016. To that effect, the claim of
opposite parties 3 to 6 was wrongly
rejected by the Insurance Company.

13. Question no.(i) is answered
accordingly in favour of claimant.

Question No.(ii) : Whether
award of interest in addition to penalty
indicated in the agreement amounts to
double jeopardy?

14. With regard to the second
question, it transpires that agreement dated
14.09.2016 provides for imposition of
penalty upon the Insurance Company in
case payment is not made to claimant in
accordance with the terms and conditions
of the agreement. It appears that earlier an
amount of Rs.2500/- per week had been
imposed
as
penalty,
which
was
subsequently reduced to Rs.1,000/- per
week.

15. Apparently, the imposition of
penalty upon the Insurance Company is a
measure not only of encouragement to
adhere to the terms and conditions of the
agreement but is also in the nature of cost
imposed upon the Insurance Company in
case the claim is wrongly repudiated and
compensation
is
not
made
to
the
nominee/legal heir of the insured.

16. By means of impugned order,
while the Permanent Lok Adalat has
imposed the aforesaid penalty, at the same
time interest at the rate of 9% has also been
imposed upon the Insurance Company.

17. It is trite that when claims are
made and are to be decided in terms of a
contract, it is only the conditions of
contract which are required to be adhered
to. The court concerned cannot on its own
volition impose a condition which is not
contemplated in the agreement. In the
present case, it appears that a steep penalty
of Rs.1000/- per week has been imposed
upon insurance Company for repudiating or
not providing compensation in terms of the
insurance scheme. Award of penalty by
Permanent Lok Adalat as such appears to
be in conformity with agreement dated
14.09.2016. However, so far as award of
interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum is
concerned, the Permanent Lok Adalat in its
impugned order does not indicate any
provision or condition of agreement under
which interest has been awarded over and
above penalty imposed in terms of the
agreement nor does the agreement contain
any clause regarding payment of interest to
claimant over and above the penalty clause.
As such, in the considered opinion of this
130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court, the permanent Lok Adalat travelled
beyond the conditions of agreement dated
14.09.2016 in granting interest while
ignoring the fact that a steep penalty of
Rs.1,000/- per week has already been
imposed and is payable by the Insurance
Company in terms of the agreement.

18. As has been indicated herein above
that when claim is made in terms of mutually
agreed and binding contract, it is only the
conditions of contract which are adhered to
without
imposition
of
extraneous
considerations. As such, once a penalty is
clearly indicated under the contract for a
party to fulfill in case of breach of contract, it
is only that penalty which can be imposed
and in the considered opinion of this Court,
no further penalty or costs can be imposed
which is beyond the terms and conditions of
such contract.

19. In the present case, it is apparent
that neither any statutory provision has been
indicated for grant of interest nor does
agreement dated 14.09.2016 stipulate grant of
any interest. As such, grant of interest over
and above the penalty clearly amounts not
only
to
Double
Jeopardy
but
unjust
enrichment and is unsustainable.

20. In view of aforesaid, Question
no.(ii) is answered in favour of petitionerInsurance Company.

21. In terms of aforesaid, order dated
27.12.2019 passed in PLA Case No.15 of
2018(Shameena Khatoon & others v. The
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & others) is set
aside only to the extent of grant of interest on
the claimed amount.

22. The petition as such is partly
allowed in terms of aforesaid. Parties shall
bear their own costs.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 130
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 39133 of 2022

Rishipal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, Sri Piyush Kumar
Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Sanjeet Kumar Mishra

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 504,
506 & 452 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 156 (3) - For offense under
Section 307 IPC - Not necessary for the
accused to have injuries - criminal state of
mind, motive and attempt of accused must
be seen - to determine if the accused has
an intention to commit murder - Injury
caused by which weapon and on which
part of the body can also be used to
determine - whether the accused has an
intention to commit murder.(Para -7)

Charge sheet and cognizance order under
challenge - Injuries not of a serious nature -
applicant had no intention of killing his own
brother - applicant/accused filed a civil suit -
pre-existing enmity between two parties -
applicant also filed a F.I.R. against complainant
under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. - allegation -
accused kept committing crimes against him - to
grab his land - just because he is old and has
only daughters. (Para -2,7,17)

HELD:-Facts recorded in F.I.R. corroborated by
oral , documentary and medical records. Even if
the complainant and his relatives wanted to