Regular Second Appeal No. 4381 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4381 of 2009 Date of decision : December 09, 2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited and another ....Appellants versus Mrs. Sulochana Devi and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellants L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendants, the New India Assurance Company Limited and its Senior Divisional Manager are in second appeal after they failed in both the courts below. Respondents-plaintiffs filed suit against defendants/appellants alleging that plaintiffs being widow, minor son and minor daughter of Mr. Babli are his legal heirs. Babli died in road accident on 3.5.2005. Defendants being insurers are liable to pay Rs 1 lac as compensation/insurance money to the plaintiffs under Chaudhary Devi Lal Jan Suraksha Bima Yojana (policy known as Devi Rakshak policy) as per memorandum of understanding entered into by the defendants with Haryana Government. However, inspite of completion of all necessary formalities Regular Second Appeal No. 4381 of 2009 -2- by the plaintiffs, defendants rejected the claim of the plaintiffs without specifying any reason and without granting opportunity of hearing. The plaintiffs accordingly claimed declaration that they are entitled to benefit of the aforesaid insurance scheme. The plaintiffs sought mandatory injunction directing the Insurance Company to pay insurance money of Rs 1 lac to the plaintiffs. The defendants while admitting the insurance scheme, inter alia, pleaded that Babli since deceased was not head of the family and rather his elder brother Tarsem Singh is head of the family as per ration card and therefore, death of deceased Babli is not covered by the insurance scheme. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ratia vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2008 decreed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad vide judgment and decree dated 24.7.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that as per memorandum of understanding, the appellants had to provide compensation to the dependents of the family in case head of the family suffers death or permanent total disablement but in the instant case Babli was not head of the family as his elder brother Tarsem Singh was recorded to be head of the family in the ration card. The contention cannot be accepted. According to definition of insured/beneficiary given in the memorandum of Regular Second Appeal No. 4381 of 2009 -3- understanding, the scheme applied to all bread earners of all families in Haryana whose name appears in voters list of Haryana or ration card issued by the concerned department of Haryana except government employees and income tax payee. It was further clarified 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. It is, thus, manifest from this definition of insured/beneficiary that the scheme was not confined to head of the family. The definition of insurer/beneficiary specifically provides that there can be more than one bread earner in single family. In that event only one bread earner will be covered under the scheme. This provision in the scheme implies that not only head of the family but even if any other bread earner dies, claim qua his death would also be covered under the scheme. On the other hand, if the scheme had been confined to cover only head of the family, it would not have been mentioned that if there are more than one bread earner in a family then only one bread earner shall be covered. The ground advanced by the appellants for rejecting the claim of the respondents under the scheme is, thus, wholly untenable. It may also be added that it is beneficial scheme to help the victims of accident. Consequently, even if two interpretations are possible, even then the interpretation advancing cause of the scheme and favourable to the family members of the deceased has to be adopted. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Both the courts below have taken correct view that claim of the plaintiffs is covered by the insurance scheme. There is, thus, no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments of the courts below so as to Regular Second Appeal No. 4381 of 2009 -4- warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 09, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'