# The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 259
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-08
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 4983 of 2024
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-oriental-insurance-company-ltd-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52246
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Insurance Law - Mukhyamantri Kisan
Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojana -Claim -
Claimant's husband died in a fire accident
- Insurance company rejected the claim
on the ground that income certificate was
not furnished - However, Permanent Lok
Adalat
allowed
the
claim
-
Validity
challenged by Company - Held, in case of
insurance contract, it is necessary that the
essential conditions of the Insurance
policy
are
fullfilled.
However,
those
essential conditions are to be construed
liberally and has to be substantially
fulfilled
-
Submission
of
Income
certificate is a necessary condition and
therefore, its submission is mandatory.
However, the time limit prescribed for
submission is merely a technical and
directory provision and cannot be a basis
of rejection of the claim. (Para 14 and 15)

B. Interpretation of statute - Liberal
construction - Social justice oriented
legislation should always receive a liberal
construction - The insurance scheme
namely Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit
Bima Yojana (MKSBY) being a welfare
scheme
whose
terms
have
to
be
interpreted taking into consideration the
hardships and welfare of the insured.
(Para 12)

Writ dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

Om Prakash Vs Reliance General Insurance,
(2017) 9 SCC 724

## Text

7 All. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
259
of the flat in question with an H.I.G. house,
which request was allowed by the then
Vice Chairman of L.D.A.; Late Ram Pyare
Panika also did not make any payment for
such H.I.G. house and instead opted for
refund of amount paid by him for Flat R152, Nehru Enclave.

41. The order impugned in the writ
petition although mentions the sale deed
executed by Late Ram Pyare Panika as an
Agreement to Sell, cannot be set aside only
on this ground. The substance of the order
being otherwise sound in law, this Court
finds no good ground to issue a writ of
Certiorari, which is even otherwise a
discretionary writ which cannot be issued
as a matter of course.

42. The writ petition is dismissed with
the liberty to the respondents to take
possession of Flat R-152 in accordance
with procedure prescribed in law.

Judgement
and
order
has
been
pronounced today under Chapter-VII Rule
1 (2) of the Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952.`
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 259
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 4983 of 2024

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. &
Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sumit Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dhruv Kumar

A. Insurance Law - Mukhyamantri Kisan
Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojana -Claim -
Claimant's husband died in a fire accident
- Insurance company rejected the claim
on the ground that income certificate was
not furnished - However, Permanent Lok
Adalat
allowed
the
claim
-
Validity
challenged by Company - Held, in case of
insurance contract, it is necessary that the
essential conditions of the Insurance
policy
are
fullfilled.
However,
those
essential conditions are to be construed
liberally and has to be substantially
fulfilled
-
Submission
of
Income
certificate is a necessary condition and
therefore, its submission is mandatory.
However, the time limit prescribed for
submission is merely a technical and
directory provision and cannot be a basis
of rejection of the claim. (Para 14 and 15)

B. Interpretation of statute - Liberal
construction - Social justice oriented
legislation should always receive a liberal
construction - The insurance scheme
namely Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit
Bima Yojana (MKSBY) being a welfare
scheme
whose
terms
have
to
be
interpreted taking into consideration the
hardships and welfare of the insured.
(Para 12)

Writ dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

Om Prakash Vs Reliance General Insurance,
(2017) 9 SCC 724

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

1. Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Standing Counsel for respondent
nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Dhruv Kumar, learned
counsel appearing for respondent no. 3.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on
record.
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. By means of present writ petition
the petitioner has challenged the order
01.04.2024, passed by the Permanent Lok
Adalat, Lucknow in PLA Case No. 28 of
2018 whereby the claim of respondent no.
3 made under the Mukhyamantri Kisan
Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojana (MKSBY) has
been allowed and the petitioner Insurance
Company has been directed to pay an
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which is the
insured amount to respondent no. 3
alongwith legal expenses of Rs.5000/- and
Rs.1000/- per week Penalty from the date
of rejection of claim till its actual payment
has been awarded.

3. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the husband
of respondent no. 3 had met a fire accident
wherein he received serious burn injuries
on 04.01.2017 and was admitted to PGI,
Safai, where be succumbed to injuries on
16.01.2017.
Postmortem
was
also
conducted
and
Punchnama
was
also
recorded with regard to aforesaid incident.
Respondent no. 3 is the wife of deceased
Sandeep who was working as agricultural
labourer and used to make earning out of
working in fields owned by other persons.
The deceased was daily labourer and was
the bread earner of the family and there is
no dispute with regard to this fact. At the
time of death of deceased he was aged
about 25 years and it is stated that his
annual income was Rs.36,000/-.

4. It is in the aforesaid circumstances
an application was made to the petitioner
seeking compensation under the MKSBY
Scheme, but the same was duly considered
and
rejected
by
the
petitioner
on
10.11.2017 on account of two facts, firstly,
that the deceased was not a farmer and
secondly that income certificate as required
under the said scheme has not been
furnished.

5. The respondent no. 3 being
aggrieved by the rejection of her claim and
having no other forum, filed an application
before
the
Permanent
Lok
Adalat,
Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "the
PLA"). The PLA duly considered the entire
facts of the case and after framing the
issues
and
receiving
evidence
and
considering contentions of all the parties,
allowed the claim of respondent no. 3. The
petitioner in the present writ petition has
challenged the said order on the ground that
the income certificate of the deceased was
filed only during the proceedings before the
PLA and not at any time prior to the same.

6. It is stated that as per terms of the
Policy income certificate had to be filed
within 45 days of the death of the insured
and the respondent not having filed the
certificate were not entitled to receive any
claim in this regard. In support of his
submissions the petitioner has relied upon
the Samajwadi Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima
Yojna form, which according to the
petitioner had been issued by the State
Government itself.

7.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents on the other hand has opposed
the writ petition by submitting that the
Scheme has been launched by the State
Government taking into account the socioeconomic condition of rural-agricultural
and marginal farmers and land less
labourers known as Samajwadi Kisan
Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna for their benefit
so that the poor and marginal farmers and
agricultural labourers can be benefited on
account of any accidental death occurring
to the bread earner of the family. The main
object of the scheme is a preventive
7 All. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
261
measure to save the entire family from
becoming destitute and accordingly, it is in
pursuance to the aforesaid scheme that
respondent no. 3 had moved her claim
before the petitioner-Insurance Company
on account of death of her husband who
died due to burn injuries on 16.01.2017.

8. Perusal of provisions as well as the
form annexed alongwith the Samajwadi
Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojna do
provide eligibility conditions for a person
to be paid compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
on death of the bread earner. As per
conditions as laid down in the form, details
of deceased have to be provided and also
that he had been earning less than
Rs.75,000/- per month.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent
no. 3 while contenting the claim has
submitted that in the written statement filed
by the petitioner itself it is stated that
income of the applicant-claimant was
disclosed rather then income of the
deceased. Income of the claimant was
shown to be less then Rs.75,000/- per
month. Even in the form which has been
relied upon by the petitioner there is no
mention of the fact that income of the
deceased has to be given.

10. In any view of the matter it is
not the case of the petitioner that either
the deceased or the claimant or the entire
family was earning more than Rs.75,000/-
per month. This aspect of the matter has
also been looked into by the Permanent
Lok Adalat and they have recorded a
finding that the claimant was fully
covered under the Mukhyamantri Kisan
Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojana (MKSBY),
as the deceased was earning about
Rs.3000/- per month and annual income
of Rs.36,000/-.

11. With regard to objection in the
rejection letter dated 10.11.2017, that the
deceased was not a farmer, there is no
material available with the petitioner to
support the said reasoning. Neither before
the Permanent Lok Adalat nor before this
Court there is any material available to
record a different finding that the deceased
was not a farmer.

12. The court is of the considered
view that welfare, beneficent aur social
justice oriented legislation should always
receive
a
liberal
construction.
The
insurance scheme namely Mukhyamantri
Kisan
Evam
Sarvhit
Bima
Yojana
(MKSBY) being a welfare scheme whose
terms have to be interpreted taking into
consideration the hardships and welfare of
the insured.

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Om Prakash v. Reliance General
Insurance, (2017) 9 SCC 724 while
dealing with the issue regarding rejection
of claim by the Insurance Companies, has
held as under:

"10. The decision of the insurer to
reject the claim has to be based on valid
grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely
technical grounds in a mechanical manner
will result in loss of confidence of policyholders in the insurance industry. If the
reason for delay in making a claim is
satisfactorily explained, such a claim
cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.
It is also necessary to state here that it
would not be fair and reasonable to reject
genuine claims which had already been
verified and found to be correct by the
investigator. The condition regarding the
delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the
insurance
claims
which
have
been
otherwise proved to be genuine."
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. In case of insurance contract, it is
necessary that the essential conditions of
the
Insurance
policy
are
fullfilled.
However, those essential conditions are to
be construed liberally and has to be
substantially fulfilled.

15. In this case, submission of Income
certificate is a necessary condition and
therefore, its submission is mandatory.
However, the time limit prescribed for
submission is merely a technical and
directory provision and cannot be a basis of
rejection of the claim.

16. In the aforesaid circumstances,
this Court is of the considered view that the
Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly come to
the conclusion that the deceased was fully
covered by the scheme issued by the State
Government and that he was the sole bread
earner of the family and was earning less
than Rs.75,000/- per month.

17. In view of above, this Court does
not find any infirmity in the impugned
order calling for interference under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India.

18. The writ petition being devoid of
merits is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 262
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 10821 of 2024

C/M Sri Mahaveer Inter College, Jauhari
Nagar, Mainpuri ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 -
Section 16(A) - Amendments to the
Scheme of Administration - Regulation 6
of Chapter VII of the Regulations -
Conversion
of
Society
into
Trust
-
Societies Registration Act, 1860, Section
13 - Dissolution of Society - Held: The
Joint Director, Secondary Education, does
not have jurisdiction to oppose the
conversion of the society into a trust
under the amended Regulation 6 of the
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
The Joint Director also does not have
jurisdiction to test the validity of the
resolution dissolving the society or the
trust's registration. Any amendments to
the Scheme of Administration of the
College must be approved as per the
provisions of Section 16(A) of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - In the
instant case more than 3/4th members of
the general body of the Society passed a
resolution for dissolution of the Society
and registration of a trust - the Joint
Director in the garb of decision over the
approval of the amendments sought to
be
incorporated
in
the
Scheme
of
Administration of the College tested the
validity of the resolution by which the
Society has been dissolved and decision
to form the trust has been taken -
Impugned
order
quashed
-
matter
remitted
to
the
Joint
Director,
to
reconsider the amendments proposed in
the Scheme of Administration of the
College strictly in accordance with the
provisions made in Section 16(A) of the
Act of 1921 (Para 14)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Committee of Management, Maharshi Kapil Muni
Shiksha Samiti & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2021
(2) ADJ 517