CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9671 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: July 06, 2009. Parties Name New India Assurance Company Limited ...PETITIONER VERSUS Smt. Kavita Yadav 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 five Civil Writ Petitions bearing No. 9671, 9681, 9682, 9704 and 9708, all of the year 2009, as common question of law and facts are involved in all these cases. For facility of dictating order, facts are being taken from CWP No. 9671 of 2009. Petitioner- New India Assurance Company Limited has filed this writ petition laying challenge to the award dated May 9, 2009 ( P-1), passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon (in short the Lok Adalat) granting an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimants ( respondents in this petition) under the 'Devi Rakshak Yojna- Insurance Scheme' (in short the Scheme) on account of death of Shri Harpal Singh, in a road accident, on December 2, 2004. As per admitted facts, Harpal Singh, aged 27 years, died in a CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9671 OF 2009 -2- road accident on December 2, 2004. FIR No. 96 was registered on the same day, in Police Station Mahipalpur (Delhi). Post -mortem of his dead body was conducted in Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. By stating that he was the bread earner of the family and his name appeared in the voters' list, the claimants – respondents filed an application to get compensation, under the Scheme before the Lok Adalat. Upon notice, petitioner appeared and objected to the grant of compensation by stating that the deceased was not head of the family and as per scheme, compensation is payable only on account of death of head of the family and not of any other earning member. Above said objection was negatived by the Lok Adalat by observing as under: “We have heard the parties. The repudiation of the claim has been made vide letter dated 28.6.2005 on the ground that the deceased was not the head of the family as per the Ration card so the claim was not maintainable. The respondent has taken an erroneous view. The name of the deceased appeared in the ration card of the family with his father and so he was not the head of the family. But 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 21.2.04 between the Sr. Divisional Manager of the Insurtance 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 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9671 OF 2009 -3- 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: (i)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. 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 family' finds no mention in the MoU and it has been clearly mentioned therein that even if there are more than one bread earners in a family, only one bread earner will be covered under the scheme.” This Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the Adalat is perfectly justified. In definition of the 'insured beneficiary' as is given in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), there is no mention that compensation will be payable, only in case of death/ injury to the head of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9671 OF 2009 -4- the family. A reading of the definition shows that Scheme, in case of death, covers all bread earners of all the families in the State of Haryana, whose name appear in the voters' list, ration card etc. Deceased in this case was neither Government employee nor an Income tax payee. Definition only says that if there are more than one bread earners in the family, in case of death, only one bread earner will be covered under the scheme. In the present case, claim is only qua the death of Harpal Singh and not regarding any other member of the family. A similar controversy came up before a Division Bench of 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 it was held that in case of death of any earning member of the family, the family shall be entitled to get compensation under the scheme. Similar is the ratio of judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 9546 of 2009, (New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Sarita Devi and others),decided on July 3, 2009. In view of facts, mentioned above, these writ petition fail and the same are dismissed. July 06, 2009. ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge