CWP 69/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.69/2006 Smt. Bhag Kanwar Versus R.S.R.T.C. & (2) Ors. Date of Order ::: 02/12//08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Amit Jindal, for petitioner Mr. PK Kasliwal, for respondent No.3 -Ins. Co. Mr. NS Chouhan, for Respondent-RSRTC (employer) Instant petition has been filed by widow assailing action of respondent NO.3 withholding her claim under Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (Group) on account of death of her husband (Gopal Singh) who died in accident while in service. Petitioner's husband (Gopal Singh) was serving as Conductor in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. While on duty as Conductor in course of Roadways Bus No.RJ-19-P-4326 being plied on Jaipur-Khatu Shyam Ji route and driven by Shri Nanu Ram on 14/02/04, bus driver halted the bus upon its arrival to destination at Khatu Shyamji at about 7.30 P.M., and went to his village while bus conductor (petitioner's husband) left alone at the bus to keep watch in the night but when bus driver returned back next day in the morning at 8 AM, he found the conductor dead in gallery of the bus – consequently, FIR was lodged at police station Khatu Shyamji (Sikar) and the CWP 69/06 //2// police got conducted post mortem on the dead body of her husband on the very day (15/02/04) and as per post mortem report (Ann.R.1) it appears that he sustained injuries but there is no material on record that an inquest U/s 174, CrPC was conducted about death of deceased. Based on the material, employer Corporation referred her claim to respondent- Insurer for payment under group personal accident insurance scheme as is evident from letter dt.20/12/05 (Ann.5) but respondents failed to make payment under Scheme. Hence this petition. In course of arguments, amongst others raised in petition, the petitioner has confined her grievance only to the insurance claim. I have heard Counsel for both the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. Scheme has been introduced with an object to provide financial aid to family members of deceased employee who died in an accident and what was required to be established that the deceased employee died in an accident. It is to be noted that term “accident” is not defined under the Insurance Act, 1938, which enables the insurer to issue different kinds of policies, subject to approval of competent authority. There cannot be any dispute that present personal accident CWP 69/06 //3// insurance Scheme (group) is also one among approved policies and this accident policy is equivalent to insurance policy as such a social welfare measure under the Act alike welfare legislation. This fact can always be established from circumstances and facts appearing in FIR and post mortem report. As regards cause of death, nothing otherwise was culminated and ultimate fact remained that the deceased employee sustained injuries and died while he was on duty and attached with vehicle to keep watch of its security. There are certain exceptions referred to under the policy which dis-entitles the claimant to ask for insured sum under the scheme. Cl.5 of Exceptions under Insurance policy reads ad infra: “Provided always that the Company shall not be liable under this policy for : (5) payment of compensation in respect of death, injury or disablement of the insured person - (a) from intentional self injury suicide or attempted suicide; (b) whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs; (c) whilst engaging in aviation or ballooning or whilst mounting into dismounting from or traveling in any balloon or aircraft other than as a passenger (fare paying or otherwise) in any duty licensed standard type of CWP 69/06 //4// aircraft anywhere in the world. (d) directly or indirectly caused by venereal disease or insanity; (e) arising or resulting from the insured person committing any breach of law with criminal intent.” It is not the case of respondents that the death of petitioner's husband while on duty falls within either of exceptions under insurance policy. Only objection raised by respondents is that death of deceased employee appears to be suspicion; hence is not entitled for release of payment under insurance scheme. However, respondents failed to conduct inquest U/s 174 CrPC, which provides that when officer of police station or some other officer specially empowered by State Government receives an information that a person has committed suicide or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to Executive Magistrate to hold inquests, which may discover the cause of death if at all there was any suspicion. But in instant case no material has been placed on record by respondents – on the basis whereof, death of husband of the petitioner could be considered to be suspicious, or it falls in any CWP 69/06 //5// of the exceptions (supra) and merely because respondents considered it to be suspicious, will not be sufficient to repudiate claim of petitioner under Group Personal Accident Insurance scheme. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to make payment of insured sum to the petitioner under Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy, within two months, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of death of petitioner's husband till actual payment. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/69CW06-Resr.doc