1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.101/2010 Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Bindu Jain Date of Judgment : 2.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. J.L.Purohit, for the appellant. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE SAPRE,J.) This is an intra court appeal filed by writ petitioner of W.P. No.1164/2009 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, against an order dated 16.2.2010 passed by Single Judge in W.P. No.1164/2009. 2. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this intra court appeal is whether Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition? 4. This is what the learned Single Judge held while dismissing the writ petition:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. 2 In my opinion, the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.” 4. It is this order, which is sought to be impugned by the writ petitioner in this appeal on two grounds. In the first place, learned counsel contended that since the impugned order of writ court is a unreasoned order, hence it is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. In the second place and in the alternative, it is contended that the order impugned in the writ petition was otherwise liable to be set aside on its merits if the facts are properly appreciated by this Court. 5. Few facts need mention. 6. One Pravin obtained LIC Policy for Rs.1 lakh from LIC (appellant) on 10.3.2001 bearing policy number 182888624. He also paid 1st instalment of premium on due date. Pravin unfortunately died in car accident on 14.8.2002. His wife i.e., the respondent herein applied to appellant (LIC) for payment of the insured amount of Rs.1 lakh being his nominee. Her claim was rejected by LIC (appellant) on 15.5.03 essentially on the ground that since the insured had deposited the second installment of premium after the expiry of due date, LIC is not liable to pay the sum. In other words, according to appellant, since the second installment of premium which had become due for payment on 10.3.2002 and latest by 10.4.2002, was not paid by the insured till 10.4.2002 hence, the policy in question lapsed on 10.4.2002 for want of payment of 2nd instalment of premium. It was also said that the insured had allegedly issued a cheque on 10.8.2002 towards payment of 2nd instalment of premium but the same was encashed on 27.8.2002 by LIC, and since payment was made subsequent to the death of insured which occurred on 14.8.2002 and 3 hence, nominee is not entitled to claim any benefit of policy in question. 7. The claimant (respondent) felt aggrieved of rejection of her claim, filed a dispute being case No.29/05 (PLA) before Permanent Lok Adalat against LIC for claiming the relief. It was contested by appellant LIC essentially on the grounds mentioned above. The Hon'ble Members by order dated 14.11.2008 (Annex.3) allowed the respondent's claim and accordingly directed the appellant (LIC) to pay the insured sum to respondent. It was held that insured had sent an amount of 2nd instalment of premium cheque through UPC on 10.8.2008 though late and the same having been encashed by LIC, the delay in payment stood condoned thereby entitling the claimant to receive the entire insured sum from LIC on the death of insured on the strength of policy in question. It is against this order of Lok Adalat, the LIC felt aggrieved and filed the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, that came to be dismissed by the writ court by passing the aforementioned impugned order giving rise to filing of this intra court appeal by LIC. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in both the submissions and hence appeal merits dismissal in limine. 9. Coming to the second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant first, we find no case to interfere in the order passed by the Lok Adalat which was impugned in the writ petition. In the first place, we have our own reservations as to whether an order passed by the Lok Adalat could be questioned in writ jurisdiction or in any forum by any party. Assuming that it could be so challenged, then also we find no merit in the submission urged. It is for the reason that LIC having received the 2nd installment of premium, though late, the nominee was entitled to claim the insured sum on the strength of policy on the death of insured. In this intra court appeal so also in writ 4 proceedings, we cannot hold any factual inquiry in finding out as to whether cheque was sent by UPC by the insured and if so whether UPC was manufactured by nominee subsequent to the date of death of insured for getting her claim entertained on the strength of policy etc. In our view, this kind of factual inquiry was not called for even in writ jurisdiction much less in intra court appeal arising out of such writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by LIC. 11. In our view, substantial justice was done to parties in the sense that once LIC was held to have received the due installments of premium, though late so far as 2nd instalment was concerned, then they were rightly held liable to make payment of the insured sum to the nominee of insured on his death. This being a welfare scheme, the benefit must go to nominee, who suffered untimely calamity by loosing her husband in car accident. In our view, this is not a case where any fraud was played or manipulation was done by the nominee for securing undue benefit of policy though unsuccessfully urged by LIC to some extent. 12. Since we have given our reasons for dismissal of writ after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) at length on the merits of the controversy, the first submission of learned counsel for the appellant stands answered by our reasoning. 13. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. It fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. [Dinesh Maheshwari], J. [A.M. Sapre],J. /tarun/