IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3370 of 2007 REKHA AGARWAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : M/S. Maruth Nath Roy and Manish Kumar. For the respondents : M/S. Prakash Kumar and Renu Jha. ------- 02. 11.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent National Insurance Company Ltd. I.A. No. 1347 of 2010 has been filed for an amendment to the relief prayed for in the original writ application seeking quashing of annexures 9 and 11 since these annexures have been communicated to the petitioner which rejected her claim for the reasons indicated therein. I.A. stands allowed. Basic facts are not disputed that husband of the petitioner late Deeak Agarwal was insured for a sum of Rs.5 lacs under what is known as Group Janta Personal Accident Policy. This policy was floated by the respondent National Insurance Company Ltd and premium for the same used to paid through Golden Multi Service Club of Begusarai. The policy was operational and the risk covered the period from 23.1.2004 to 22.1.2019. As ill luck would have it, husband of the petitioner died on 2.3.2004 as he was shot by criminals for which an FIR namely Mofussil P S Case No. 48 of 2004 came to be registered. 2 The widow .i.e. the present petitioner subsequently came to learn about the insurance policy taken by her husband. She lodged her claim upon the respondents since she was the nominee, along with all the supporting documents. Claim was processed and came to be rejected vide annexure-9 dated 20.6.2006 and reiterated vide annexure-11 dated 30.11.2006. The primary reason stated in the two annexure is that there was three days delay in making a claim. As per the stipulation of the policy the claim should have been lodged within thirty days. It is in this background that petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the said communication. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company. Two grounds have now been taken for rejection – (i) that the policy does not cover intentional murder as murder was not accidental; (ii) that limitation came in the way of deciding the claim. To the response of the stand of the respondents, counsel for the petitioner submits that the first ground which is a new ground, is being raised for the first time in the counter affidavit. There is no objection of such kind taken in annexure-9 and 11. They cannot be permitted now to urge new grounds for rejection. Even otherwise the interpretation sought to be given is not 3 reflected from the perusal of the policy. This submission of the petitioner merits consideration and the Court does hold that this ground urged or taken in the counter affidavit is not the ground on which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Therefore this aspect of the matter cannot be allowed to be raised as an defence to the non-settlement of the claim of the petitioner. The second aspect of the matter is whether objection limitation of 30 days raised, acted against the petitioner can be set up as a defence for rejecting the claim. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner relies on two decisions which have been rendered in similar circumstances by this Court which is the case of Rubi Devi Vs. State of Bihar. In CWJC No. 11947 of 2005 vide decision dated 28.11.2006 the single Judge of this Court has held that terms and conditions of the policy will bind the persons who have entered into agreement. The nominee or the beneficiary who may not be even aware of the terms and conditions or in a situation of the kind where husband of the petitioner gets murdered then obviously the widow does not rush to the office of Insurance Company as a first thing after accident of the kind. Similar view has been expressed in LPA No. 23 of 2007 which was a case of Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar. 4 The order is dated 26.3.2007. In view of the above annexure 9 and 11 stands quashed. Respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and decide the claim within a time frame. In this regard three months time is granted to the respondents. The writ application is allowed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )