CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9546 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: July 03, 2009. Parties Name New India Assurance Company Limited ...PETITIONER VERSUS Smt. Sarita 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 seven civil writ petitions bearing No. 9546 to 9550, 9587 and 9588, 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. 9546 of 2009. This writ petition has been filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd. against award dated May 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 under “Devi Rakshak Yojna Insurance Scheme” (in short the Scheme) on account of death of Shri Subhash Chand, husband of respondent No. 1, in a motor accident, on October 28, 2004. Counsel for the petitioner heard. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9546 OF 2009 -2- 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. Subhash Chand, husband of respondent No. 1, died in a road accident on October 28, 2004. He was 43 years of age. FIR No. 263 was recorded on October 28, 2004, in Police Station Bilaspur, district Gurgaon, regarding above said accident. Despite intimation, when compensation was not paid, private respondents 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 Adalat, while rejecting objection, raised by the Insurance Company, has observed as under: “The repudiation of the claim has been made on the sole ground that the deceased was not the head of the family and so the claim was not maintainable. The respondent has taken an CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9546 OF 2009 -3- erroneous view. The name of the deceased appeared in the old Ration Card of the family but it was lost. In the new Ration card got prepared after his death the name of his wife Sarita Devi with children Mukesh and Aarti appeared. There was a separate Ration card in the name of Sukhdev and Emarti the parents of the deceased. This shows he was separate from his parents and as such was head of the family. It is not correct that only the head of the family was covered under the policy. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that in Ruby's case that view was taken by Insurance Ombudsman. He further argued that in a clarifying meeting held on 21.10.04 between the Sr. Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company and the concerned officers of Haryana Govt., it was mutually agreed to compensate the death of the head of the family only. The minutes of that meeting have not been shown. Even if there was any such meeting and something was agreed it was not given any effect. The MOU was signed on 25.10.04 i.e. After four days of the said meeting and no such agreement finds any mention in the MOU. The word head of family finds no mention in the MOU. The relevant clause of the MOU reads as follows: Definitions 1.Insured beneficiary: it has been decided to continue the scheme to all the bread earners of all the families in Haryana whose names appear in the voter list of Haryana or Ration Card issued by concerned department of Haryana except Govt. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9546 OF 2009 -4- employees and Income Tax payees. In order to clarify the situation. It is further stated that if there are more than one bread earners 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 word 'head of the family' finds no mention in the MOU and it has been clearly mentioned therein that when if there are more than one bread earners in a family, only one bread earner will be covered under the scheme. The question of limitation was also raised but one of the applicants is still minor and so no question of limitation arises. In III (2003) ACC 25, Smt. Abha Yadav Vs. Municipal Corporation Delhi which was a suit claiming damages/ compensation under Section 1A of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855, it was held that though the suit was filed after the statutory period of two years, it will still in time as the time stood extended by legal fiction on account of disability/ minority of three plaintiffs. The suit was filed by widow and three minor sons and the aged father of the deceased with mother of the minors as guardian. Thus the applicants are entitled to the benefit of the policy.” 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 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9546 OF 2009 -5- 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. The Lok Adalat has noted that old ration card of the family was lost. New ration card was got prepared after death of Subhash Chand. In view of that, name of the deceased did not appear in the ration card. It was also noticed by the Lok Adalat that parents of the deceased were living separate and had a separate ration card. Admittedly, the deceased was neither a Government employee nor Income-tax assessee. This Court is of the view that the 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 fail and the same are dismissed. July 03, 2009. ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge