# The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., M.G. Marg Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 368
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-26
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 4687 of 2022
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-m-g-marg-allahabad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48533
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

to correct each and every error of law or
fact - decline to offer any interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution on a
technical ground raised - that the order
should
have
been
passed
by
the
Committee
and
not
the
District
Magistrate, in her individual capacity
(Writ- C No. 5090 of 2022 (The Oriental
Insurance Company Limited And 2 Others
Vs. State of U.P. And 133 Others)) - Under
the scheme, if for any reason, the
Insurance Company finds that the claim is
not acceptable or it has reservation in
accepting the claim - proper remedy is to
refer the matter to the District Level
Committee - headed by District Magistrate
- decision of said Committee would be
final. (Para -3,5 )

Claim of petitioner - for grant of benefit under
Mukhyamantri Kisaan Avam Sarvahit Beema
Yojana - rejected by Insurance Company - on a
technical ground - challenge before high court
under writ - disposed of with liberty to raise
grievance before District Magistrate - DM
allowed claim - granting compensation of Rs. 5
lakhs - no fault of claimant - order challenged
on two grounds - DM himself decided case
whereas claim was to be decided by District
Level Committee - income certificate must have
5 All. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., M.G. Marg Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
369
been issued within 45 days but same issued
after 45 days that cannot be accepted. (Para -
3,4,5 )

HELD:- The identical grounds have been
considered in the final judgment (The Oriental
Insurance Company Limited And 2 Others Vs.
State of U.P. And 133 Others) already rendered
by coordinate Bench of this Court, no good
ground to take a different view of the
matter.(Para -7 )

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Sohni Shankwar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , Writ-C
No. 563 of 2020

## Text

368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
came to be passed when the proceedings
for establishing 'forest offence' are pending.
The appellate authority has in fact recorded
that the appellant failed to establish that he
was not involved in the offence. The said
finding clearly is erroneous inasmuch as
the question of the offence having been
committed is yet to be established.

14. The instructions given by the
Standing Counsel provide for the manner in
which the orders are supposed to be passed.
In any event of the matter, it is well
established that an order passed cannot be
supplemented by giving any reasons which
are absent in the orders passed and
impugned herein.

15. Thus, in totality and for the
reasons recorded, I am of the view that the
order impugned dated 25.08.2021 and the
order dated 21.02.2022 are liable to be set
aside.

16. Accordingly, the orders dated
25.08.2021 are set aside. It is directed that
the truck in question, which is in the
custody, being the Truck No.UP75 M-9306
shall be released forthwith to the petitioner
on his furnishing proof of ownership and
giving an undertaking to produce the truck
as and when required and with condition
that the petitioner shall not sell the truck in
question
without
obtaining
adequate
permission from the divisional forest
officer in accordance with law. The
question of confiscation shall be considered
by the concerned officer only after the
'forest offence' in question is decided by the
competent court after trial.

17. The writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A368
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ C No. 4687 of 2022

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., M.G. Marg
Allahabad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kuldeep Shanker Amist

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

(A) Judicial review - Court is not obligated
to correct each and every error of law or
fact - decline to offer any interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution on a
technical ground raised - that the order
should
have
been
passed
by
the
Committee
and
not
the
District
Magistrate, in her individual capacity
(Writ- C No. 5090 of 2022 (The Oriental
Insurance Company Limited And 2 Others
Vs. State of U.P. And 133 Others)) - Under
the scheme, if for any reason, the
Insurance Company finds that the claim is
not acceptable or it has reservation in
accepting the claim - proper remedy is to
refer the matter to the District Level
Committee - headed by District Magistrate
- decision of said Committee would be
final. (Para -3,5 )

Claim of petitioner - for grant of benefit under
Mukhyamantri Kisaan Avam Sarvahit Beema
Yojana - rejected by Insurance Company - on a
technical ground - challenge before high court
under writ - disposed of with liberty to raise
grievance before District Magistrate - DM
allowed claim - granting compensation of Rs. 5
lakhs - no fault of claimant - order challenged
on two grounds - DM himself decided case
whereas claim was to be decided by District
Level Committee - income certificate must have
5 All. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., M.G. Marg Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
369
been issued within 45 days but same issued
after 45 days that cannot be accepted. (Para -
3,4,5 )

HELD:- The identical grounds have been
considered in the final judgment (The Oriental
Insurance Company Limited And 2 Others Vs.
State of U.P. And 133 Others) already rendered
by coordinate Bench of this Court, no good
ground to take a different view of the
matter.(Para -7 )

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Sohni Shankwar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , Writ-C
No. 563 of 2020

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
&
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kuldip Shanker Amist,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Sharad
Chandra
Srivastava,
learned
Standing Counsel appearing for respondent
nos. 1 and 2.

2. The present petition has been filed
for seeking the following reliefs :-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned award dated 12.04.2021, passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Etawah,
allowing
the
Claim
No.
272800/48/2019/030794 of the respondent
no. 3, (Annexure-7 to the writ petition).

ii. Issue a writ, order and
direction dismissing the claim of the
Respondent No. 3.

iii. Issue any other and further
writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and just in the
circumstances and facts of the case.

iv. Award cost to the petitioner."

3. By the rejection order, the
Insurance Company has repudiated the
claim of respondent no. 3 which was made
under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam
Sarvahit Beema Yojana, on the ground that
the income certificate was not produced by
the claimant within 45 days of the death of
the deceased husband. Challenging the
same, the petitioner approached this Court
by filing Writ-C No. 563 of 2020 (Sohni
Shankwar Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others),
which was disposed of vide order dated
14.01.2020. The aforesaid order is quoted
as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

The claim of the petitioner for
grant of benefit under the Mukhyamantri
Kisaan Avam Sarvahit Beema Yojana has
been rejected by the Insurance Company on
a technical ground.

The
submission
of
learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
Insurance Company has no authority of
law to reject the claim.

It is acceptable to the parties that
under the scheme, if for any reason, the
Insurance Company finds that the claim is
not acceptable or it has reservation in
accepting the claim, the proper remedy is to
refer the matter to the District Level
Committee,
headed
by
the
District
Magistrate and the decision of the said
Committee would be final.

In view of the above, we dispose
of the writ petition with liberty to the
petitioner to raise his grievance before the
District Magistrate. In case, any such
representation is made within a period of
two
weeks
from
today,
the
District
Magistrate shall call for the records of the
claim submitted by the petitioner and after
due verification and examination, get it
considered by the District Level Committee
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in accordance with law, most expeditiously,
preferably within a period of two months of
submission of representation.

The writ petition stands disposed
of, accordingly."

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the
impugned order was passed by District
Magistrate, Etawah on 12.04.2021 holding
that since the Samajwadi Kisan Evam
Sarvahit Bima Care Card was liable to be
issued free of cost by the Company which
was not issued, therefore, it cannot be said
that there is any fault on the part of the
claimant in getting the income certificate
within 45 days of the death of her husband.
Accordingly,
the
claim
was
allowed
granting the compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs.

5. The order is being challenged on
two grounds, firstly that the District
Magistrate himself has decided the case
whereas the claim was to be decided by the
District Level Committee and secondly,
that the income certificate must have been
issued within 45 days but the same was
issued after 45 days that cannot be
accepted. The identical grounds have been
considered by this Court in Writ- C No.
5090 of 2022 (The Oriental Insurance
Company Limited And 2 Others Vs. State
of U.P. And 133 Others) wherein both the
arguments were considered by this Court
and relevant paragraphs whereof are quoted
as under:-

"The first submission advanced
by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
found to be wholly misconceived. In the
context of the group insurance policy taken
out by the State Government, the claimantrespondent became entitled to claim the
insured amount on the occurrence of the
accidental death of Pushpendra Kumar
during the currency of the group insurance
policy. The claim itself was made within
time. There is no dispute as to these facts.
The further fact that the income certificate
was issued beyond a period of 45 days did
not set up any inherent infirmity in that
claim made as period of 45 days mentioned
in amended Clause 2 was only directory,
that too for the purpose of making the
payment only. It was not necessary to
determine the liability of the petitioner that
arose on the occurrence of death of the
insured
during
the
currency
of
the
insurance policy. The claim itself was made
within time. No consequence has been
shown provided or existing in the insurance
policy clauses as may lead to the inference
that the insurance claim would become
invalid if the income certificate was
produced after 45 days. It only affected the
release of payment by the petitioner. In any
case, the beneficiaries had no control over
the time taken in preparation of the said
income
certificate,
by
government
functionaries.

The delay if any (of 23 days) is
mainly as may have been caused while
making procedural compliances. It is
neither inordinate nor such as may give
rise to any doubt as to the genuineness of
the claim. Here it may also be noted that
the income certificate and its contents are
wholly undisputed. It reflects that the
income of the deceased was Rs. 36,000/-
per annum at the time of his death.
Therefore, the claimant-respondents were
wholly eligible to receive the insurance
money.

In view of the above, the claim
made by the claimant-respondent was
wholly genuine and valid. The petitionerinsurer had wrongly repudiated that claim.

As to the second submission we
are equally unimpressed. In the exercise of
judicial review, the Court is not obligated
to correct each and every error of law or
5 All. Asset Reconstruction Co., India Ltd.(Arcil) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
371
fact. Since it cannot be disputed that the
claimant is entitled to the insured amount,
we decline to offer any interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution on a
technical ground raised by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the order should have
been passed by the Committee and not the
District Magistrate, in her individual
capacity. The claimant-respondent being
eligible to receive Rs. 5,00,000/- from the
petitioner against the insurance policy, no
real prejudice has been caused to the
petitioner, by the impugned order."

6. The learned counsel for the
petitioner could not dispute the same.

7. In view of the final judgment
already rendered by coordinate Bench of
this Court, we do not find any good ground
to take a different view of the matter.

8. Accordingly, the petition stands
dismissed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A371
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ C No. 6529 of 2022

Asset Reconstruction Co., India Ltd.(Arcil)
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - Possession of secured asset
- The Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial
Assets
and
Enforcement
of
Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14(1)
- provide a machinery for empowering
banks,
financial
institutions
and
reconstruction company - power to take
possession of secured assets and to sell or
manage it - proviso to Section 14(1) of
SARFAESI Act, 2002 - on receipt of the
affidavit from the Authorised Officer, the
District
Magistrate
or
the
Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may
be - shall after satisfying with the
contents of the affidavit - pass suitable
orders
for
the
purpose
of
taking
possession of the secured asset - within a
period of thirty days from the date of
application - if no order is passed within
the said stipulated period of thirty days
for reasons beyond his control - he may,
after recording reasons in writing for the
same, pass order within such further
period -not exceeding in aggregate sixty
days - inability to take possession within
the prescribed time-limit does not render
the District Magistrate Functus Officio.
(Para -8)

Petitioner is secured creditor - order passed
under secion 14(1) of SARFAESI Act - Staterespondents not given physical possession of
secured asset in question to petitioner - order
not complied with - dismissed by DRT -
respondent Nos.2 and 3 shift their responsibility
upon respondent No.4 - not taking any action
despite Government Order.(Para -3,4,5, )

HELD:- Direction to respondents Nos.1 and 4 to
give physical possession of secured asset in
question to petitioner-bank within one month &
also direction to the Chief Secretary of the State
to issue clear directions to all the concerned
authorities in the State to comply strictly the
provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002 and handover physical possession of the
secured asset to the concerned bank/ financial
institutions/ reconstruction company within the
prescribed
time,
if
there
is
no
legal
impediment.(Para - 11,12)