IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.M. No.11087-C of 2010 and R.S.A. No.459 of 2010 Date of Decision:02.12.2010 New India Assurance Company Limited and another .....Appellants Vs. Smt. Sunita and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellants. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (Oral) C.M. No.11087-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the order dated 19.8.2010 is recalled. The appeal is restored to its original number. R.S.A. No.459 of 2010 This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent for declaration to the effect that she was entitled to the benefits of personal accident coverage under Chaudhary Devi Lal Jan Suraksha Bima Yojna popularly known as Devi Rakshak Scheme on account of accidental death of sole bread-earner of the family, i.e., the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 and that the order dated 7.2.2006 rejecting her claim arbitrarily was liable to be set aside, with a consequential relief, was C.M. No.11087-C of 2010 and -2- R.S.A. No.459 of 2010 decreed. In the grounds of appeal, it has been submitted that the following substantial questions of law arises in this appeal: 1. Whether the deceased Sanjay Kumar, being not head of family as per the Ration Card, is covered under the Insurance Policy in question? 2. Whether it is mandatory to be head of the family in the ration card for being entitled to claim of insurance under the Chaudhary Devi Lal Jan Suraksha Bima Yojna Policy? 3. Whether the head of the family as per the Ration Card in the present case was Ram Kumar, who is father of Sanjay Kumar rather than Sanjay Kumar himself? However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has very fairly stated before this court that in view of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition No.CC 6084 of 2010 arising out of a judgment dated 6.10.2009 of this Court in C.W.P. No.15309/2009, the appellants cannot substantiate the aforesaid questions of law raised by it as the aforesaid questions have been held to be against the appellant. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal being meritless, is ordered to be dismissed. December 02, 2010 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) renu JUDGE