AMEMDED PETITIQ'i •atsy, BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COJRT OF CHHATTISGABH AT BlLASPUR. WRIT PETIT10N N0. _l677..0F 2004. . PETITIQNER eS^' RESPCBDENTS v S.P. Pillai, son of Late B. Muthu Swami, aged .about 4Q years, Besident of 23-// Avenue -C,.Sector-I, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) E R SU S l.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 9/1, South Gangotri, Supela Chowk, G.E. Road, Bhilai, / Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2.1he Steel Authorify of India Ltd. Through the Managing Direc.tor, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distriet Durg (Chhattisgarh) 3.5teel 'fSoskerSS Union, Through thepresidentB.D. Kureshi, Bunglow no. 6, 32 Bunglows, Bhilai, District Ducg (C.G.) 4.Gajendra Singh, General Secratary Steel Worker's Union, Bhilai Steel plant, Bhilai, District Dujpg (Chhattisgarh) !i'';J d iia ta a E£IHiaiJJNDE^._^iTI^^_226._^D_2^_^_CCTiSTI3UJlg^ sr HIGH_CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONN0.1677 OF 2004 PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS S.P. Pillai Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others f^. Post for pronouncement of orders on the 2- ^ day of August, 2011 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0.1677 OF 2004 S.P. Pillai Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the respondent No.1. (Delivered on this __2l^day ofAugust, 2011) By this petition, the petitioner seeks that the Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy No.152501/47/1999/176 valid for 9-1-1999 toS-1-2011, be declared as still valid, as there is no compliance ofterm No.5 ofAnnexure P/4. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the respondent No.3 - Steel Worker's Union (for short "the respondent No.3 Union") proposed to provide insurance coverage to its members under the Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy. Thereupon, the Memorandum of Understanding, accordingly between the respondent No.1 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (for short "the respondent No.1 Insurance Company")and the respondent No.3 Union, was signed on 4-12-1998 (Annexure- P/1). Thereafter, the respondent No.2 - Steel Authority of India Limited (for short "the respondent No.2 SAIL") began deducting premium money from the salary pf the individual workers and the same was handed over to the respondent No.3 Union. rlAJU.ll lljiiii, :y%. The respondent No.4 i.e. the General Secretary of the respondent No.3 Union issued a memo dated 30-4-2004 (Annexure - P/3) to the Divisional Manager of the respondent No.1 Insurance Company dedaring that the policy has been cancelled by the Branch Manager, Supela. It was further stated that the premium was not properly collected and the Branch Manager has violated the terms of the agreement. Thus, the Divisional Manager ofthe respondent No.1 Insurance Company was informed that the premium as well as the insured amount may be returned back to the family members of the insured member, who died in accident.during the period, forthwith. It is further pleaded that the respondent No.4 has received back the premium amount from the respondent No.1 Insurance Company, which was illegal and against the interest of the workers. Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing with Ms. Meera Jailswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the policy No. 152501/47/1999/176 could not have been cancelled without any notice to the individual workers. The individual workers were not getting claims. Shri Agrawal would further submit that several persons approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (for short "the District Forum"), which was decreed in their favour. Thereagainst, the respondent No. Insurance Company preferred- appeals before the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Forum"). The said appeals were dismissed on 6-2-2004 (Annexure - P/6) holding that there was notsufficient compliance of item No.5. 8. 9. 10. 11 12. Thus, this petition to seek the abovestated declaration. Shri Agrawal would next submit that the respondent No.4 was not at all competent to hold the office of the respondent No.3 Union. Initially the petition was filed as Public Interest Litigation petition. The Division Bench of this Court on considering the submission of the parties held that "smce the petitioner himself is interested in the relief claimed in the writ petition, this oannot be entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. Hence, this matter will be treated as ordinary writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and will be listed before learned Single Judge in future." Initially, the respondent No.1 Insurance Company filed a preliminary objection and objected the filing of petition as PIL, as is evident from the affidavit dated 8-7-2004. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 without filing detailed reply supported the decision ofthe respondent No.1 Insurance Company. Clause 5 of the Insurance policy provides that the Insurance Company may cancel the policy at any time with a written notice. In that event, the company shall deduct the proportionate premium amount and the remaining amount will be returned back to the concerned policy holder. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was not paid full amount of the policy, thus cancellation of the policy may not be treated as cancelled. The policy still continues even after the same stand cancelled on '26-11-2001, which was published in the newspaper on 26th & 27th April, 2004. On perusal of clause 5 of the policy, it is not found that there is any breach of the policy. In the petition, the petitioner pleaded ^ that the petitioner received a notice of cancellation of policy on 1-5-2005 and cheque dated 16-5-2005 amounting to Rs.239/-. The saidamount was returned to the respondent No.1 Insurance Company on 20-10-2005. In view of the above, the cancellation cannot be held as unjust and proper. 13. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the District Forum has granted relief to some of the persons, the policy may be declared as still valid, is frivolous. Even if the District Forum/State Forum has found deficiency in service and has directed for payment to someof the persons who have approached the District Forum/State Forum cannot be held as the basis to declare the cancellation of the policy as bad and further the policy should be held as valid till 8-1-2011. 14. It is nowhere stated that why the amount was returned and what should be the exact amount to which, the petitioner was entitled under the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, there is no merit in this case. However, liberty is reserved to the petitionerto approach the District Forum, if so advised, as according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner other persons have approached the District Forum and have been granted relief. 15. In the result, the writ petition is shorn of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 16. There shall be no order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- satish K Agnihotri Judge