CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10010 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: July 09, 2009. Parties Name New India Assurance Company Limited ...PETITIONER VERSUS Smt. Rajni Devi and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) ORDER: This order will dispose of three civil writ petitions bearing No. 10010, 10009 and 10011, all of the year 2009, as common question of law and facts is involved in all these cases. For facility of dictating order, facts are being taken from CWP No. 10010 of 2009. This writ petition has been filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd. against award dated June 11, 2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon,( in short Lok Adalat) awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimants ( respondents No. 1 to 3 in this petition) under “Devi Rakshak Yojna Insurance Scheme” (in short the Scheme) on account of death of Sunil CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10010 of 2009 -2- Kumar, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 and 3 in a road accident on January 25, 2005. The deceased was 24 years of age at the time of death. Counsel for the petitioner heard. It is apparent from the records that the Haryana Government launched a Scheme, which envisages payment of compensation to all bread earners of all the families in the State of Haryana, in case a bread earner suffers death or permanent total disability due to rail, road or air accident and riots, strike etc. Detail of the circumstances, in which compensation will be payable, has been given in para No. 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding entered between Government of Haryana and the petitioner (Annexure P-3). In the Scheme it is provided that the petitioner -Insurance Company shall disburse amount of compensation to the family of the deceased within 72 hours after the death. Sunil Kumar, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 and 3 (minors) died in a road accident on January 25, 2005. Consequently, DDR No. 41 was recorded on January 25, 2005, in Police Station Civil Lines, Aligarh, regarding above said accident. Despite intimation, when compensation was not paid, respondents No. 1 to 3 approached the Lok Adalat for claiming requisite relief. Upon notice, petitioner put in appearance and took up a plea that only a head of the family, as on the date of issue of the policy, was covered under the Scheme. It was further objected that as the deceased was not head of the family, so compensation was not payable to his dependents. Above said argument has again been reiterated before this Court today at the time of arguments. This Court feels that the argument is not tenable and deserves rejection. The Lok CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10010 of 2009 -3- Adalat, while rejecting objection, raised by the Insurance Company, has observed as under: “The repudiation of the claim has been made vide letter dated 06.08.2005 on the ground that the deceased was not the head of the family at the time of commencement of policy and so the claim was not maintainable. The name of the deceased appeared in the Ration Card with his father and other members of the family and as such he was not the head of the family. But he was the bread earner of the family. He was a young man of 24 years of age. It is not correct that only the head of the family was covered under the policy. The relevant clause of the MOU reads as follows: (i)Insured/ Beneficiary: It has been decided to continue the scheme to all the bread earners of all the families in Haryana whose name appears in the voters list of Haryana or Ration Card issued the concerned Department of Haryana except Government employees and Income Tax Payees.In order to clarify the situation. It is further stated that if there are more than one bread earner in a family, in that case only one bread earner will be covered under the scheme. Accident resulting in death/ permanent disability met to the insured beneficiaries even outside Haryana is also covered under the Scheme. So, the words 'Head of family' nowhere appear in the MOU and it has been clearly mentioned therein that even if there are more than one bread earner in a family, only one bread earner will be CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10010 of 2009 -4- covered under the scheme. The Haryana Government paid the premium not for itself but for the bread earners mentioned in the MOU who became the beneficiary under the scheme and so they can lay the claim under the policy. So the objection regarding lack of privity of contract is without any basis. The Insurance Company has its office at Gurgaon and so the claim petition has been filed at Gurgaon. The other preliminary objections are not worth of any consideration.” This Court is of the opinion that the finding given above is perfectly justified. In MOU, as has been noted above, there is no provision stating that compensation shall be payable only on account of death of head of the family. Rather it is mentioned that the benefit under the Scheme shall be available to all the bread earners of all the families in the State of Haryana, whose name appear in the voters' list of the State or in ration card issued by the concerned Department of the State of Haryana except Government employees and Income-tax payees. This Court is of the view that the private respondents were entitled to get compensation under the scheme, which has rightly been granted to them by the Lok Adalat. Exactly, a similar controversy came up before this Court in C.W.P. No. 13979 of 2007 (New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Raj Bala and another), decided on April 4, 2008, and a Division Bench of this Court held that once name of the deceased appeared in the ration card, then the dependent family member shall be entitled to get compensation. No other point was argued. Consequently, the writ petitions CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10010 of 2009 -5- fail and the same are dismissed. July 09, 2009. ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge