# Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt. Uma Devi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 314
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-25
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 21066 of 2020
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/oriental-insurance-company-ltd-v-smt-uma-devi-ors-46768
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

(A) Civil law - General Insurance
Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 -
Section 9 & Section 16 - petitioner -
insurance company is fully owned
subsidiary of the General Insurance
Corporation of India - a Government
Company - State within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India - National Litigation Policy -
Government should be a responsible
litigant
-
should
not
involve
in
frivolous litigation - Prioritisation in
litigation has to be achieved with
particular
emphasis
on
welfare
legislation,
social
reform,
weaker
sections and senior citizens and other
categories requiring assistance must
be given utmost priority - In contract
of insurance, rights and obligations
are strictly governed by the policy of
insurance - terms of the insurance
policy have to be strictly construed in
order to determine the extent of the
liability
of
the
insurer.(Para
-
17,19,27,29)
1 All. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Uma Devi & Ors.
315
Respondent No.1 is widow whose husband
(petty farmer) and head of the family/ bread
earner - died in an accident - covered under the
Kisan Bima Yojna - filed an insurance claim with
the petitioner - Aggrieved with the rejection of
her claim by the petitioner - filed an application
before the District Review Committee headed by
the District Magistrate - passed the impugned
"binding order" under the Kisan Bima Yojna -
awarded the claim of Rs.5 lacs to the
respondent No.1. - Committee allowed the
insurance claim - recorded a findings of fact
directed that in the event, the amount awarded
is not paid by the petitioner - insurance
company within one month, then penalty in
terms of the Kisan Bima Yojna shall be paid to
the respondent No.1 @ Rs.1,000/- per week -
Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner
insurance company has filed the present writ
petition.(Para - 3,4,5)

HELD:-The petitioner insurance company
not being an ordinary litigant and more
particularly bound by the insurance contract
should not have filed the present frivolous
writ petition to challenge the impugned
contractually "binding order". The conduct of
the petitioner in filing the present writ petition
deserves to be condemned inasmuch as a
frivolous writ petition has been filed to drag in
litigation the respondent No.1 who is a widow
and belongs to economically weaker and
socially and educationally disadvantageous
section of the society - As per terms of
contract of insurance, the petitioner is bound
by the order of the respondent No.3 and was
also bound to make payment within the time
specified failing which penalty of Rs.2,500/-
per week is payable to the claimant.(Para -
25,30)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,955 of 63,078. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39955 for what follows._

314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Labour Court about the validity of the
order of transfer, the logical incidents of it
would flow, to whichever parties' gain or
prejudice it might have been. About this
reference, this Court has no hesitation to
hold that it is without any basis, and on the
date it was made or with reference to the
Employers' order that it was made, there
was no termination of services for the
workman. The industrial dispute in the
terms it was referred was completely nonexistent. The Labour Court being a Court
of referred jurisdiction, could not have
gone beyond or behind the terms of
reference in which the industrial dispute
sent to it was cast."

16. In view of the clear position of the
law and the nature of dispute, that is
involved here between the workman and
the
Employers,
the
reference
made
certainly does not clothe the Labour Court
with jurisdiction to decide upon the validity
of the transfer order dated 20.02.2004.
Accordingly, the impugned award is not
liable to be disturbed and is upheld. It is,
however, ordered that the Deputy Labour
Commissioner/ State Government, whoever
is competent, shall make a fresh reference,
under Section 4-K of the Act of 1947 in
appropriate terms, referring the dispute that
arises between parties, bearing in mind
what has been said in this judgment.

17. This writ petition is disposed of
in terms of the aforesaid orders. There shall
be no order as to costs.

18. Let this order be communicated to
the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Agra
Region, Agra, U.P. by the Joint Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2021)01ILR A314
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 21066 of 2020

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Uma Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Parv Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil law - General Insurance
Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 -
Section 9 & Section 16 - petitioner -
insurance company is fully owned
subsidiary of the General Insurance
Corporation of India - a Government
Company - State within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India - National Litigation Policy -
Government should be a responsible
litigant
-
should
not
involve
in
frivolous litigation - Prioritisation in
litigation has to be achieved with
particular
emphasis
on
welfare
legislation,
social
reform,
weaker
sections and senior citizens and other
categories requiring assistance must
be given utmost priority - In contract
of insurance, rights and obligations
are strictly governed by the policy of
insurance - terms of the insurance
policy have to be strictly construed in
order to determine the extent of the
liability
of
the
insurer.(Para
-
17,19,27,29)
1 All. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Uma Devi & Ors.
315
Respondent No.1 is widow whose husband
(petty farmer) and head of the family/ bread
earner - died in an accident - covered under the
Kisan Bima Yojna - filed an insurance claim with
the petitioner - Aggrieved with the rejection of
her claim by the petitioner - filed an application
before the District Review Committee headed by
the District Magistrate - passed the impugned
"binding order" under the Kisan Bima Yojna -
awarded the claim of Rs.5 lacs to the
respondent No.1. - Committee allowed the
insurance claim - recorded a findings of fact
directed that in the event, the amount awarded
is not paid by the petitioner - insurance
company within one month, then penalty in
terms of the Kisan Bima Yojna shall be paid to
the respondent No.1 @ Rs.1,000/- per week -
Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner
insurance company has filed the present writ
petition.(Para - 3,4,5)

HELD:-The petitioner insurance company
not being an ordinary litigant and more
particularly bound by the insurance contract
should not have filed the present frivolous
writ petition to challenge the impugned
contractually "binding order". The conduct of
the petitioner in filing the present writ petition
deserves to be condemned inasmuch as a
frivolous writ petition has been filed to drag in
litigation the respondent No.1 who is a widow
and belongs to economically weaker and
socially and educationally disadvantageous
section of the society - As per terms of
contract of insurance, the petitioner is bound
by the order of the respondent No.3 and was
also bound to make payment within the time
specified failing which penalty of Rs.2,500/-
per week is payable to the claimant.(Para -
25,30)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited :-

1. Biman Krishna Bose Vs United India
Insurance Company Ltd., (2001) 6 SCC 477
(para-3)

2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
Manubhai Dharmasinhbhai Gajera, (2008) 10
SCC 404 (Paras-25 and 26)
3. Dilbagh Rai Jerry Vs U.O.I. & ors., (1974) 3 SCC
554

4. Mundrika Prasad Singh Vs St. of Bihar, (1979) 4
SCC 701 (para-5, 6, 7)

5. Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs Mohan
Lal, (2010) 1 SCC 512 (paras-10,11, 12)

6. Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs Khajani, (2012) 8 SCC
781 (para-2)

7. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Atma
Singh Grewal, (2014) 13 SCC 666 (paras 8 to 14)

8. Deokar Export (P) Ltd. Vs New India Assurance
Co. Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 598 (para-14)

9. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Vs M/S.
Garg Sons International (2014) 1 SCC 686 (Paras10 to 13)

10.
Industrial
Promotion
and
Investment
Corporation of Orrisa Vs New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. (2016) 15 SCC 315 (paras-9 to 13)

11. General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs Chandumull
Jain & anr., 1966 SC 1644 (para-11)

12. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC
567 (paras- 23 to 26)

13. M/S Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd Vs Oil &
Natural Gas Company, (2010) 11 SCC 296 (para36)

14. Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & anr. Vs New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 599 (para-17)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani,J.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the
binding order dated 20.12.2019 passed
by the District Review Committee,
Jhansi
(respondent
No.3)
awarding
insurance claim to the respondent No.1
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the "Mukhya Mantri Kisan Evam
Sarvahit Bima Yojna" (in short "Kisan
Bima Yojna").

2. Heard Sri Parv Agarwal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj
Kumar Kuswaha, learned standing counsel
for the State-respondents.

Facts:-

3. Briefly stated facts of the present
case are that the respondent No.1 is widow
whose husband and head of the family/
bread earner, namely late Pramod Kori
aged about 25 years died on 20.06.2019 in
an accident caused by a vehicle "Tavera".
He was a petty farmer who owned one
sixth share out of total area of 0.882 hectare
of agricultural land. He was covered under
the aforesaid Kisan Bima Yojna. After the
death of her husband, the respondent No.1
filed an insurance claim with the petitioner
under the Kisan Bima Yojna. She obtained
an income certificate dated 29.08.2019
issued
by
the
competent
authority/
Tehsildar, Garautha, Jhansi, certifying
income from all sources to be Rs.2,500/-
per month, i.e. Rs.30,000/- per annum. The
petitioner rejected the claim of the
respondent
No.1
by
order
dated
26.11.2019, observing as under:

"e`rd@ ifjokj dh okfZ"kZd vk; dk
izek.ki= e`R;q ds 45 fnu ckn dk cuk gSA tks ;kstuk
esa ekU; ugha gSA"

4. Aggrieved with the rejection of
her
claim
by
the
petitioner,
the
respondent No.1 filed an application
before the District Review Committee
headed by the District Magistrate Jhansi
who passed the impugned "binding order"
dated 20.12.2019 under the Kisan Bima
Yojna and awarded the claim of Rs.5 lacs
to the respondent No.1.

5. In the impugned order, the
respondent No.3 has recorded a findings
of
fact
that
the
deceased
owned
agricultural
land
as
aforementioned,
deceased was head of the family/ bread
earner and income of the family was
Rs.30,000/- per annum. The Committee
allowed the insurance claim and directed
that in the event, the amount awarded is
not paid by the petitioner - insurance
company within one month, then penalty
in terms of the Kisan Bima Yojna shall be
paid to the respondent No.1 @ Rs.1,000/-
per week. Aggrieved with this order, the
petitioner insurance company has filed
the present writ petition.

6. This Court heard at length, the
learned counsels for the parties on
10.12.2020 and directed the petitioner to
file a supplementary affidavit annexing
therewith complete scheme "Mukhya
Mantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna"
and a copy of contract of insurance of the
petitioner with the State Government. In
compliance to the aforesaid order, the
petitioner has filed a supplementary
affidavit dated 15.12.2020. The scheme
"Mukhya Mantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit
Bima Yojna" as amended, is part and
parcel
of
the
agreement/
insurance
contract dated 13.09.2018 between the
petitioner and the Governor of Uttar
Pradesh.

Submissions:-

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has referred to the averments made in
paragraphs-10, 19 and 20 of the writ
petition, which are reproduced below:
1 All. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Uma Devi & Ors.
317

"10. That to substantiate the
claim, the claimant submitted an income
certificate dated 29.08.2019 showing her
annual income as Rs.30,000/-. The said
income certificate was prepared after 45
days of the death. A True copy of the
claim petition along with the income
certificate is being filed here with and is
marked as Annexure no.3 to this writ
petition.

19. That it would be worth the
mention here that the claimant has filed
her claim under the scheme on the
strength of the income certificate issued
beyond the period prescribed under the
MOU.

20. That it is categorically
submitted that at the time of the renewal
of the policy in 2018 the State has agreed
to the term that the income certificate has
to be issued within 45 days and not
beyond that and as such the income
certificate issued on 29.08.2019 was fatal
for the claimant, for which the petitioner
cannot be saddled with the liability."

8.

Learned
standing
counsel
supports the impugned order.

Discussion and Findings:-

9. Kisan Bima Yojna has been
enacted by the State Government with
the following object and benefit to the
State as mentioned in the scheme,
which is reproduced below:

";kstuk dk uke& **eq[;ea=h fdlku
,oa loZfgr chek ;kstuk**

;kstuk dk mn~ns';& fofHkUu izdkj dh vfuf'pr
nqHkkZX;iw.kZ ?kVuk;sa ftlls ifjokj ds eqf[k;k dh
e`R;q gks ldrh gS@fodykax cuk ldrh gS tks
iwjs ifjokj ds fy;s vlqj{kk@foifRr;ka yk ldrh
gSa] dh lgk;rk gsrqA "

10. Mainly, the Kisan Bima Yojna is
in two parts as mentioned in the scheme, as
under:

"bl ikfylh ds nks eq[; Hkkx gS%&

1& O;fDrxr nq?kZVuk chek (First part)

2& nq?kVZuk ds mijkUr fpfdRlk lqfo/kk
,oa vko';drkuqlkj d`f=e vaxA (Second part)

Hkkx&1 O;fDrxr nq?kZVuk chek%& ifjokj
ds eqf[k;k@jksVh vtZd dh jsy@jksM@ok;q;ku ls
nq?kZVuk] fdlh Hkh Vdjko] fxjus ds dkj.k pksV] xSl
fjlko] liZ dkVus fcPNw] usoyk] fNidyh dkVus ls
ejuk] flys.Mj QVus ds dkj.k fodykaxrk ;k e`R;q]
foLQksV] dqRrk dkVus] taxyh tkuoj ds dkVus ls
ejuk] tyuk] Mwcuk] ck<+ esa cg tkuk] fdlh Hkh izdkj
ls gkFk&iSj dV tkuk ,oa fo"kkDrk vkfn nq?kZVuk esa
'kkfey gSaA

O;fDrxr nq?kZVuk chek ds vUrxZr dsoy
ifjokj dk eqf[k;k@jksVh vtZd vkPNkfnr gSaA

& 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

& nq?kZVuk esa fodykaxrk& nq?kZVuk esa
ifjokj ds eqf[k;k@jksVh vtZd dh fodykaxrk dh
fLFkfr esa chek dEiuh ihfM+r eqf[k;k@jksVh vtZd dks
fuEukuqlkj Hkqxrku djsxh%&

O;fDrxr nq?kZVuk vkoj.k vfHkO;Dr eqvkotk dqy
chfer jkf'k dk izfr'kr esa
LFkk;h iw.kZ fodykaxrk
100 izfr'kr
LFkk;h
vkSj
ykbZykt
ikxyiu
100 izfr'kr
dqy nks vaxks ds LFkk;h
uqdlku
100 izfr'kr
nksuksa vka[kksa esa LFkk;h n`f"V
dk uqdlku
100 izfr'kr
,d vax vkSj ,d vka[k
dh
n`f"V
dk
LFkk;h
uqdlku
100 izfr'kr
okd~ dk LFkk;h uqdlku
100 izfr'kr
fupys tcM+s dh iwjh gkfu 100 izfr'kr
pckus dh fLFkfr dk 100 izfr'kr
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
LFkk;h uqdlku
nksuksa dkuksa ls cgjsiu dh
fLFkfr
75 izfr'kr
,d
vax
dk
LFkk;h
uqdlku
50 izfr'kr
,d vka[k dh n`f"V gkfu
dk LFkk;h uqdlku
50 izfr'kr

Hkkx&2 nq?kZVuk ds mijkUr fpfdRlk
lqfo/kk ,oa vko';drkuqlkj d`f=e vax dh
miyC/krk&

ifjokj ds eqf[k;k@jksVh vtZd rFkk
ifjokj ds lnL; izkFkfed mipkj ,oa cM+s
fpfdRlky;@Vakek lsUVj esa chfer vof/k ds nkSjku
nq?kZVuk
ds
mijkUr
fpfdRlk
lqfo/kk
,oa
vko';drkuqlkj d`f=e vax izkIr dj ldsaxsA

blds vUrxZr ifjokj dk eqf[k;k@jksVh
vtZd@ifjokj dk lnL; vkPNkfnr gSA
nq?kZVuk ds mijkUr doj

dojst
ykHkkFkhZ
chfer jkf'k 1⁄4:01⁄2
nq?kZVuk
ds
mijkUr izkFkfed
fpfdRlk
Ifjokj
dk
eqf[k;k@jksV
h
vtZd@ln
L;
0-25 yk[k
IzkFkfed fpfdRlk
ds mijkUr cM+s
fpfdRlky;@Vake
k
lsUVj
esa
fpfdRlk lqfo/kkA
Ifjokj
dk
eqf[k;k@jksV
h
vtZd@ln
L;
2-25 yk[k
vko';drkuqlkj
d`f=e vax
ifjokj dk
eqf[k;k@jksV
h
vtZd@ln
L;
1-00 yk[k

11. The beneficiaries under the
Scheme, eligibility, features of the Yojna
and Insurance Coverage are provided in the
Kisan Bima Yojna, as under:

"ykHkkFkhZ& ;g ;kstuk mRrj izns'k ds
fuokfl;ksa ds fy;s gSaA

ik=rk& mRrj izns'k jkT; ds leLr
d`"kd 1⁄4vlhfer vk; lhek1⁄2] Hkwfeghu d`"kd] d`f"k ls
lacaf/kr fdz;kdyki djus okys] 1⁄4eRL; ikyd] nqX/k
mRiknd] lwdj ikyd] cdjh ikyd] e/kqeD[kh ikyd
bR;kfn1⁄2 /kqeUrw ifjokj] O;kikjh 1⁄4tks fd fdlh 'kklu
;kstuk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gS1⁄2] ou Jfed] nqdkunkj]
QqVdj dk;Z djus okys] fjD'kk pkyd] dqyh ,oa vU;
dk;Z djus okys xzkeh.k {ks=ksa vFkok 'kgjh {ks=ksa ds
fuoklh ftudh ikfjokfjd vk; :0 75]000@& izfr
o"kZ ls de gks ,oa ftudh vk;q 18 o"kZ ls 70 o"kZ ds
e/; gS] ik= gksaxsaA blesa jkT; ljdkj ,oa Hkkjr
ljdkj rFkk jkT; ,oa dsUnz ljdkj ds ih0,l0;w ds]
foRrh; lgk;rk izkIr laLFkkuksa ds] futh {ks= ds rFkk
Lo'kklh fudk;ksa@ lkoZtfud midzeksa@fuxeksa@cksMZ
,oa izkf/kdj.kksa ds deZpkjh tks fdlh chek dEiuh dh
chek ;kstuk ls ykHkkfUor gks jgs gS] 'kkfey ugha gksxsA
chek vkoj.k dh vof/k esa 18 o"kZ dh vk;q iw.kZ djus
okys mDr lHkh ;kstuk ds vUrxZr ik=rk dh ifjf/k esa
vk;sxsaA blh izdkj chek vkoj.k vof/k esa 70 o"kZ iw.kZ
gks tkus ij mDr lHkh ik=rk Js.kh esa ekus tk;sxsaA

d`"kd& d`"kd dk rkRi;Z jktLo vfHkys[kksa
vFkkZr~ [krkSuh esa ntZ [kkrsnkj@lg[kkrsnkj ls gSa]
ftldh vk;q U;wure 18 o"kZ rFkk vf/kdre 70 o"kZ
gksA

Hkwfeghu d`"kd ,oa d`f"k ls lacaf/kr
fdz;kdyki& ,sls xzkeh.k Hkwfeghu ifjokj tks izR;{k ;k
vizR;{k :i ls d`f"k dk;Z ls tqM+s gq, gksaA

vU;& d`"kdksa ds vfrfjDr ftudh vk;q
18 o"kZ ls 70 o"kZ ds e/; gS rFkk ikfjokfjd vk; :0
75]000@& izfr o"kZ ls de gks] ;kstukUrxZr ik=
gksaxsA blesa jkT; ljdkj ,oa Hkkjr ljdkj rFkk jkT;
,oa dsUnz ljdkj ds ih0,l0;w ds] foRrh; lgk;rk
izkIr laLFkkuksa ds] futh [ks= ds rFkk Lo'kklh
fudk;ksa@lkoZtfud
midzeksa@fuxeksa@cksMZ
,oa
izkf/kdj.kksa ds deZpkjh tks fdlh chek dEiuh dh chek
;kstuk ls ykHkkfUor gks jgs gSa] 'kkfey ugha gksaxsA

izns'k ljdkj ds fdlh Hkh foHkkx }kjk
lapkfyr fdlh Hkh nq?kZVuk chek ;kstuk esa vkPNkfnr
ykHkkFkhZ eq[;ea=h fdlku ,oa loZfgr ;kstuk ds fy,
ik= ugha gksaxsA

ifjokj vkPNknu& vkPNkfnr ifjokj dk
eqf[k;k@jksVh vtZd 1⁄4chek /kkjd1⁄2 :0 5-00 yk[k rd
dk O;fDrxr nq?kZVuk chek ykHk ,oa eqf[k;k@jksVh
vtZd@ifjokj ds lnL; nq?kZVuk ds mijkUr :0
25]000@& rd izkFkfed fpfdRlk ,oa :0 2-25 yk[k
rd o`g) fpfdRlk ykHk rFkk vko';drkuqlkj
vf/kdre :0 1-00 yk[k rd dk d`f=e vax izkIr
dj ldsaxsA
1 All. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Uma Devi & Ors.
319

chek vkoj.k dh vof/k& chek vkoj.k dh
vof/k laLFkkxr foRr] chek ,oa okg~; lgk;frr
ifj;kstuk egkfuns'kky;] m0iz0 ,oa chek dEiuh ds
e/; eseksjs.Me vkQ v.MjLVSafMax 1⁄4,e0vks0;w01⁄2
gLrk{kfjr gksus dh frfFk ls ,d o"kZ ds fy, ekU;
gksxh rnksijkUr~ bls o"kZokj c<+k;k tk;sxkA ;g ;kstuk
03 o"kZ + 03 o"kZ ls vf/kd ugha gksxhA

ifjokj fu/kkZj.k& ifjokj ds vUrxZr
ifjokj dk eqf[k;k@jksVh vtZd 1⁄4iq:"k@L=h1⁄2 mldh
iRuh@ifr] vfookfgr iq=h] vkfJr iq=] eqf[k;k ifr
,oa vfookfgr iq:"k ds vkfJr ekrk&firk chek dk
ykHk izkIr djus gsrq vko`Rr gksxsaA

ykHkkFkhZ dh ik=rk fuEu nLrkostksa }kjk
fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxh%&

1- Hkw&jktLo vfHkys[k 1⁄4[kljk@[krkSuh
d`"kdksa ds ekeyksa esa lg[kkrsnkj lfgr1⁄2] 1⁄4fdlh Hkh
d`"kd dks vk; izek.k&i= dh vko';drk ugha gS1⁄2

2- rglhynkj ls izkIr vk; izek.k i=
1⁄4vU; ds ekeyksa esa1⁄2A

3- ifjokj fooj.k izek.k i= 1⁄4dksbZ ,d1⁄2

- ifjokj jftLVj dh izfrA

- jk'ku dkMZA

- mi ftykf/kdkjh@izFke Js.kh
eftLVasV }kjk tkjh izek.k&i=

4- vk;q izek.k&i= 1⁄4dksbZ ,d1⁄2

- gkbZLdwy izek.k&i=A

- cSad [kkrs dh iklcqdA

- oksVj vkbZ0Mh0 dkMZ@oksVj fyLV
dh izfrA

-
uxj
fuxe@[k.M
fodkl
dk;kZy; }kjk tkjh vk;q izek.k&i=A

- ikliksVZA

- MakbZfoax ykblsUlA

- vk/kkj dkMZA

- jk'ku dkMZA

5- fuokl izek.k&i= 1⁄4bl ;kstuk gsrq fuokl
izek.k&i= dk fu/kkZj.k1⁄2 m0iz0 ds fuokfl;ksa gsrq fuEu
ls dksbZ ,d ftlesa uke] irk ntZ gks%

- ikliksVZ

- Makbfoax ykblsal

- jk'ku dkMZ

- cSad [kkrs dh iklcqd

- oksVj vkbZ0Mh0dkMZ

- vk/kkj dkMZA

- mi ftykf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh
fuokl izek.k&i=A

;kstuk dh fo'ks"krk,a&

1& uxn jfgr lqfo/kk;qDrA

2& O;fDrxr nq?kZVuk chek&ifjokj ds
eqf[k;k@jksVh vtZd dh nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q@LFkkbZ iw.kZ
fodykaxrk@LFkk;h vkSj ykbZykt ikxyiu@dqy nks
vaxksa ds LFkk;h uqdlku@nksuksa vka[kksa esa LFkk;h uqdlku
@nksuksa vka[kksa esa LFkk;h n`f"V dk uqdlku@okd~ dk
LFkk;h uqdklku@fupysa tcM+s dh iwjh gkfu@pckus
dh fLFkfr dk LFkk;h uqdlku ij chfer jkf'k :0 500 yk[k] nksuksa dkuksa ls cgjsiu dh fLFkfr esa chfer
jkf'k :0 5-00 yk[k dk 75 izfr'kr rFkk ,d vax dk
LFkk;h uqdlku ;k ,d vka[k dh n`f"V gkfu ds LFkk;h
uqdlku ij chfer jkf'k :0 5-00 yk[k dk 50
izfr'kr ykHk fn;k tk;sxkA

3& nq?kZVuk ds mijkUr ifjokj ds
eqf[k;k@jksVh vtZd@ifjokj ds lnL; ds fy, ykHk&

eqf[k;k@lnL; dh nq?kZVuk ds mijkUr
fpfdRlk ds fy;s&:0 2-50 yk[k

eqf[k;k@lnL; vko';drkuqlkj :0 1-00
yk[k rd dk d`f=e vax

chek vkoj.k& ;g ;kstuk ifjokj ds
eqf[k;k@jksVh vtZd dks O;fDrxr nq?kVZuk ,oa ifjokj
ds eqf[k;k@jksVh vtZd rFkk ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dks
nq?kZVuk
ds
mijkUr
fpfdRlk
lqfo/kk
,oa
vko';drkuqlkj d`f=e vax dh lqfo/kk iznku djsxhA"

12.
Detailed
and unambiguous
procedure for lodging claims, awarding
claims and review in the event of rejection
of claim by the insurance company and
other relevant matters including payment of
claims and penalty of Rs.2,500/- per week
for non-payment by the petitioner -
Insurance Company, has been provided in
the Kisan Bima Yojna, which is part of the
contract between the petitioner and the
State Government. The Scheme further
provides the binding effect of the order
passed by the District Review Committee
headed by the District Magistrate. The
relevant portion of the Kisan Bima Yojna
with respect to rejection of claims, is
reproduced below:

"Xkfrjks/k dk fuiVku& nkos ds vi;kZIr
vFkok vukSfpR; iw.kZ vk/kkjksa ij vLohd`r djus rFkk
fpfdRlky;ksa dks chek dEiuh }kjk lle; Hkqxrku u
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
djus ij lacf/kr ftykf/kdkjh dh v/;{krk esa xfBr
lfefr dk fu.kZ; chek dEiuh ij ck/;dkjh gksxkA "

Claim
process
for
Person
Accidental Insurance

m) In case any discrepancies are
found in the claim or if any controversy
arises, the claim shall be investigated and
the investigation report shall be presented
to the concerned committee (headed by
District Magistrate). The Committee shall
include:

a. District Magistrate

b.
Chief
Development
Officer

c. Chief Medical Officer

d.
Sub-
Divisional
Magistrate

Representatives of the Insurance
Company shall also be invited. The
Committee shall take decision on all the
discrepant/Controversial
claims.
The
Insurance Company shall be bound to
adhere to the decision taken by the
Committee and make the payment within
one month. In such cases. Insurance
Company shall submit a cheque of
amount payable to the District Magistrate
who will hand over the cheque to the
concerned Head of the family/ bread
winner/nominee/ legal heir (as applicable)
within 15 days."

13. The aforesaid Kisan Bima Yojna
was amended and the amendment also
forms part of the Insurance Contract
between the petitioner and the State
Government. Amendments include that
income certificate is not required for B.P.L.
card holders, beneficiaries of Samajwadi
Pension
and
farmers,
khatedar/
sahkhatedar. For the purposes of the aforesaid
Kisan Bima Yojna under the agreement, the
State Government as per clause (1) of the
agreement, has paid annual insurance
premium to the petitioner for Agra Cluster
- Rs. 105,93,81,344/-, Meerut Cluster -
Rs. 54,03,58,132/-, Bareilly Cluster - Rs.
74,22,45,091/-, Kanpur Cluster - Rs.
76,09,84,705/-
and
Basti
Cluster
-
Rs.25,74,05,500/-.

14. From the facts as briefly noted
above and the relevant portion of Kisan
Bima Yojna, it is evident that the Yojna,
which is part of insurance contract between
the petitioner and the State Government; is
an ambitious insurance for poor people,
which has been launched with the pious
object of welfare of the economically
weaker, neglected and disadvantageous
section of the society so as to provide
them protection of medical/ treatment
facility and to ensure medical facility
and economic security to them in the
event of disability or death of the head of
the family or bread earner.

15. Undisputedly, the husband of the
respondent No.1 i.e. the deceased was the
head of the family/ bread earner. He was a
small farmer and as such in terms of the
Kisan Bima Yojna scheme (as amended),
no income certificate was even required.
The award made by the respondent No.3,
i.e. the District Review Committee is
binding in terms of the afore-quoted clause
(m) of the contract. In terms of the contract,
the petitioner was bound to adhere to the
decision of the Committee and make the
payment within one month. But instead of
making the payment, the petitioner, as an
"ordinary litigant" has filed the present writ
petition on frivolous grounds to drag in
litigation the respondent No.1 who is a
widow
and
belongs
to
socially,
economically
and
educationally
disadvantageous section of the society.

Plight of small farmers/ neglected/
disadvantageous section of the society:-
1 All. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Uma Devi & Ors.
321

16. In Bhusawal Municipal Council
Vs Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak and
others, 2014(2) AWC 1407 (SC) (paras
16,17,18), Hon'ble Supreme Court made
certain observations in a land acquisition
matter with reference to the plight of
farmers and poor persons of the society. It
was observed, as under:

"16. The judicial process of the
court cannot subvert justice for the reason
that the court exercises its jurisdiction only
in
furtherance
of
justice.
The
State/authority often drags poor uprooted
claimants even for payment of a paltry
amount upto this Court, wasting the
public money in such luxury litigation
without realising that poor citizens cannot
afford the exorbitant costs of litigation
and, unfortunately, no superior officer of
the
State
is
accountable
for
such
unreasonable conduct. It would be apt to
quote the well known words of Justice
Brennan:

"Nothing rankles more in the
human heart than a brooding sense of
injustice. Illness we can put up with. But
injustice makes us want to pull things
down. When only the rich can enjoy the
law, as a doubtful luxury, and the poor,
who need it most, cannot have it because
its expense puts it beyond their reach, the
threat to the continued existence of free
democracy is not imaginary but very real,
because democracy's very life depends
upon making the machinery of justice so
effective that every citizen shall believe in
and benefit by its impartiality and
fairness."

17. The fundamental right of a
farmer to cultivate his land is a part of
right to livelihood "Agricultural land is the
foundation for a sense of security and
freedom from fear. Assured possession is a
lasting source for peace and prosperity."
India being predominantly an agricultural
society, there is a "strong linkage between
the land and the person's status in the
social system." "A blinkered vision of
development, complete apathy towards
those who are highly adversely affected by
the development process and a cynical
unconcern for the enforcement or the laws
lead to a situation where the rights and
benefits promised and guaranteed under
the Constitution hardly ever reach the most
marginalised citizens. For people whose
lives and livelihoods are intrinsically
connected to the land. the economic and
cultural shift to a market economy can be
traumatic." (Vide: Mahanadi Coal Fields
Ltd. & Anr. v. Mathias Oram & Ors.,
(2010) 11 SCC 269; and Narmada Bachao
Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh &
Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1989)

18. A farmer's life is a tale of
continuous experimentation and struggle
for existence. Mere words or a visual can
never convey what it means to live a life as
an Indian farmer. Unless one experiences
their struggle, that headache he will never
know how it feels. The risks faced by the
farming community are many; they relate
to natural calamities such as drought and
floods; high fluctuation in the prices of
input as well as output, over which he has
no control whatsoever; a credit system
which never extends a helping hand to the
neediest; domination by middlemen who
enjoy the fruits of a farmer's hard work;
spurious
inputs,
and
the
recent
phenomenon of labour shortages, which
can be conveniently added to his tale of
woes. Of late, there have been many cases
of desperate farmers ending their lives in
different
parts
of
the
country.
The
Principles of Economics provides for the
producer of a commodity to determine his
prices but an Indian farmer perhaps is the
only exception to this principle of
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
economics, for even getting a decent price
for their produce is difficult for them.
Economic growth through the 1990's had
made India a more market- oriented
economy, but had failed to benefit all
Indians equally. The problems that plagued
the farmers several decades ago are still
glaringly present today; there is little credit
available. What is available is very
expensive. There is no advice on best
practice
in
conducting
agriculture
operations. Income through farming is not
enough to meet even the minimum needs of
a farming family. Support systems like free
health facilities from the government are
virtually
non-existent.
The
drama
of
millions leaving their homes in search of
jobs, which are non existent of villages
swiftly losing able-bodies of adults, leaving
behind the old, hungry and vulnerable.
Families break up as their members head
in diverse directions.
(Emphasis supplied by me)"

Government Insurance Company -
whether an ordinary litigant?

17. Prior to independence, insurance
business in India was owned and operated
by private entities. The governing law of
insurance in India was still the Insurance
Act, 1938. Post independence, by the
Industrial Policy Resolution 1956, the life
insurance industry in India was to be
nationalized.
The
Life
Insurance
Corporation Act, 1956 was passed creating
Life Insurance Corporation as a statutory
corporation and the assets of all the private
Life Insurance Companies were transferred
to L.I.C. Thereafter, the General Insurance
(Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 was
passed by parliament which provided for
taking over the management of general
insurance business. Initially, the Central
Government
assumed
management
of
general insurance business as an initial step
towards nationalization. Thereafter, the
General
Insurance
Business
(Nationalization) Act, 1972, was passed.
Section 16 of the Act, 1972 contemplated
merger of the private insurance companies
into four insurance companies namely, (a)
National Insurance Company Ltd. (b) New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. (c) Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. and (d) United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. These four insurance
companies are fully owned subsidiaries of
General Insurance Corporation of India,
which is a Government company registered
under the Companies Act but incorporated
as mandated under Section 9 of the
aforesaid Nationalization Act. Thus, the
petitioner - insurance company is fully
owned
subsidiary
of
the
General
Insurance Corporation of India.

18. Petitioner is a Government
Insurance Company. In the case of
Biman Krishna Bose vs. United India
Insurance Company Ltd., (2001) 6 SCC
477 (para-3), Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered a similar insurance company,
namely United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
and held that it is a State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
of India. It was further observed that even,
in an area of contractual relations, the State
and its instrumentalities are enjoined with
the obligations to act with fairness and
must not take any irrelevant and extraneous
consideration while arriving at a decision.
Arbitrariness should not appear in their
actions or decisions. In United India
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.
Vs.
Manubhai
Dharmasinhbhai Gajera, (2008) 10 SCC
404 (Paras-25 and 26), Hon'ble Supreme
Court
held
United
India
Insurance
Company to be State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India and
observed that it has been created under the
1 All. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Uma Devi & Ors.
323
General Insurance Business Nationalization
Act, 1972 and preamble thereof shows that
it was enacted for achieving certain
purposes; economic benefit of the people
and/or group of people, being one of it. It
was further observed that there existed a
distinction between a private player in
the field and a public sector insurance
company. Whereas a private player in the
field is only bound by the statutory
regulations operating in the field, the
public sector insurance companies are
also bound by the directions issued by
the General Insurance Corporation as
also the Central Government. Public
sector insurance companies being State
have a different role to play. It is not to
say that as a matter of policy, statutory or
otherwise, the insurance companies are
bound to regulate all contracts of insurance
having
the
statement
of
Directive
Principles in mind but there cannot be any
doubt
whatsoever
that
fairness
or
reasonableness on the part of the
insurance companies must appear in all
of its dealings.

19. Thus, the petitioner Insurance
Company being a Government Company is
not an ordinary litigant. It is State within
the
meaning of
Article
12 of
the
Constitution of India.

20. In Dilbagh Rai Jerry Vs. Union
of India and others, (1974) 3 SCC 554,
Hon'ble Krishna Iyer J. (concurring)
considered that what should be the
approach of Government in litigation and
observed as under:

"The judgment just delivered has
my full concurrence but I feel impelled to
make a few observations not on the merits
but
on
governmental
disposition
to
litigation,
the
present
case
being
symptomatic of a serious deficiency. In this
country the State is the largest litigant today and the huge expenditure involved
makes a big draft on the public exchequer.
In the context of expanding dimensions of
State activity and responsibility, is it
unfair to expect finer sense and sensibility
in its litigation policy, the absence of
which, in the present case, has led the
Railway callously and cantankerously to
resist an action by its own employee, a
small man, by urging a mere technical plea
which has been pursued right up to the
summit court here and has been negatived
in the judgment just pronounced. Instances
of this type are legion as is evidenced by
the fact that the Law Commission of India
in a recent report on amendments to the
Civil Procedure Code has suggested the
deletion of Section 80, finding that
wholesome provision hardly ever utilised
by Government, and has gone further to
provide
a
special
procedure
for
government litigation to highlight the need
for an activist policy of just settlement of
claims where the State is a party. It is not
right for a welfare' State like ours to be
Janus-faced, and while formulating the
humanist project of legal aid to the poor,
contest the claims of poor employees
under it pleading limitation and the like.
That the tendency is chronic flows from
certain observations I had made in a
Kerala High Court decision which I may
usefully excerpt here "The State, under our
Constitution,
undertakes
economic
activities in a vast and widening public
sector and inevitably gets involved in
disputes with private individuals. But it
must be remembered that the State is no
ordinary party trying to win a case against
one of its own citizens by hook or by
crook; for the State's interest is to meet
honest claims, vindicate a substantial
defence and never to score a technical
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
point or overreach a weaker party to avoid
a just liability or secure an unfair
advantage, simply because legal devices
provide such an opportunity. The State is
a
virtuous
litigant
and
looks
with
unconcern on immoral forensic successes
so that if on the merits the case is weak,
government shows a willingness to settle
the dispute regardless of prestige and
other lesser motivations which move,
private parties to fight in court. The layout on litigation costs and executive time
by the State and its agencies is so
staggering these days because of the large
amount of litigation in which it is involved
that a positive and wholesome policy of
cutting back on the volume of law suits by
the twin methods of not being tempted into
forensic show-downs where a reasonable
adjustment is feasible and ever offering to
extinguish a pending proceeding on just
terms, giving the legal mentors of
government some initiative and authority
in this behalf. I am not indulging in any
judicial homily but only echoing the
dynamic national policy on State litigation
evolved at a Conference of Law Ministers
of India way back in 1957. This second
appeal strikes me as an instance of
disregard of that policy."
(Emphasis supplied by me)

21. In the case of Mundrika Prasad
Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (1979) 4 SCC
701 (para-5, 6, 7), Hon'ble Supreme Court
held as under:

"5. The State of Bihar, like many
other States in the country, has an
enormous volume of litigation. Government
litigation policy is vital for any State if
resources are to be husbanded to reduce
rather than increase its involvement in
court proceedings. It is lamentable that
despite a national litigation policy for the
States having been evolved at an all-India
Law Ministers' Conference way back in
1957 and despite the recommendations of
the Central Law Commission to promote
settlement of disputes where Government
is a party what we find in actual practice
is a proliferation of government cases in
courts uninformed by any such policy.
Indeed, in this country where government
litigation constitutes a sizeable bulk of the
total volume, it is important that the State
should be a model litigant with accent on
settlement. The Central Law Commission,
recalling a Kerala decision, emphasised
this aspect in 1973 and went to the extent
of recommending a new provision to be
read
as
Order
27
Rule
5B.
The
Commission observed:

27.9. We are of the view that
there
should
be
some
provision
emphasising the need for positive efforts at
settlement,
in
suits
to
which
the
Government is a party.

27.10. With the above end in
view, we recommend the insertion of the
following rule :-

5-B(1)
In
every
suit
or
proceeding to which the Government is a
party or a public officer acting in his
official capacity is a party, it shall be the
duty of the Court in the first instance, in
every case where it is possible to do so
consistently
with
the
nature
of
the
circumstances of the case, to make every
endeavour to assist the parties in arriving
at a settlement in respect of the subjectmatter of the suit.

(2) If, in any such suit or
proceeding, at any stage it appears to the
court that there is a reasonable possibility
of a settlement between the parties, the
court may adjourn the proceeding for
such period as it thinks fit, to enable
attempts to be made to effect such a
settlement.
1 All. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Uma Devi & Ors.
325

(3) The power conferred by Subrule (2) is in addition to any other power of
the court to adjourn the proceedings.

6. The relevance of these wider
observations is that avoidable litigation
holds out money by way of fees and more
fees if they are contested cases and this
lures a lawyer, like any other homo
economicus, to calculate income on a
speculative basis, as this Government
Pleader has done in hoping for a lakh of
rupees.

7. We have been taken through
the Bihar Government's rubs for fees of
Government
Pleaders
in
subordinate
courts. Rule 115 appetises and is unrelated
to the quantum or quality of work involved
nor the time spent. Ad valorem calculation
in fixing fees for land acquisition cases has
a tendency to promote unearned income for
lawyers.
The
petitioner
here
has
presumably fallen victim to this proclivity.
The time has come for State Governments
to have a second economic look not only at
litigation policy but lawyer's fees rules (like
Rule 115 in the Bihar instance) especially
in mass litigation involving ad valorem
enormity and mechanical professionalism.
Even a ceiling on income from public
sector
sources
may
be
a
healthy
contribution to toning up the moral level of
the professional system. After all, the cost
of justice is the ultimate measure of the
rule of law for a groaning people.
Government and other public sector
undertakings should not pamper and
thereby inflate the system of costs. May be,
this petition would not have been filed had
the prospect of income without effort not
been offered by Government Rules."
(Emphasis supplied by me)

22.

In
the
case
of
Urban
Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs. Mohan
Lal, (2010) 1 SCC 512 (paras-10,11, 12),
Hon'ble Supreme Court took notice of
unwarranted litigation by Governments and
State authorities and held as under:

"10. Unwarranted litigation by
governments and statutory authorities
basically stem from the two general
baseless assumptions by their officers.
They are:

(i)
All
claims
against
the
government/statutory authorities should
be viewed as illegal and should be resisted
and fought up to the highest court of the
land.

(ii) If taking a decision on an
issue could be avoided, then it is prudent
not to decide the issue and let the
aggrieved party approach the Court and
secures a decision.

The reluctance to take decisions,
or tendency to challenge all orders against
them, is not the policy of the governments
or statutory authorities, but is attributable
to some officers who are responsible for
taking decisions and/or officers in charge
of litigation. Their reluctance arises from
an
instinctive
tendency
to
protect
themselves against any future accusations
of wrong decision making, or worse, of
improper motives for any decision making.
Unless
their
insecurity
and
fear
is
addressed, officers will continue to pass on
the responsibility of decision-making to
courts and Tribunals.

11. The Central Government is
now attempting to deal with this issue by
formulating realistic and practical norms
for defending cases filed against the
government and for filing appeals and
revisions
against
adverse
decisions,
thereby, eliminating unnecessary litigation.
But, it is not sufficient if the Central
Government alone undertakes such an
exercise. The State Governments and the
statutory authorities, who have more
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
litigations than the Central Government,
should also make genuine efforts to
eliminate
unnecessary
litigation.
Vexatious and unnecessary litigations
have been clogging the wheels of justice,
for too long making it difficult for courts
and Tribunals to provide easy and speedy
access to justice to bona fide and needy
litigants.

12.