IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1781 of 2011 CHINTA DEVI @ CHINA DEVI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rajendra Narayan & Mr. Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates For the State:- Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, AC to SC-16 For the National Insurance Company:- Mr. Ashok Priyadershi, Advocate For the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar:- Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate ----------- 05. 17.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State, for the Chief Electoral Officer and for the National Insurance Company Limited. The husband of the petitioner was deployed at a polling booth during the Assembly elections in the year 2000 as part of the Static Armed Force. The elections were held in the scorching heat of the month of May. While on duty at the booth, he suffered a heat stroke on 26.5.2000 was rushed to the Primary Health Center, Bidupur and died soon thereafter. The State Government had originally taken an insurance policy to cover its employees paying premium to the Insurance Company, the duration of which was from 09.02.2000 to 08.03.2000. Bye-polls were held. Death has occurred in the bye-poll. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed before the Court the original records from which it transpires that for the bye-poll, the duration of 2 the insurance was extended from 24.5.2000 to 23.6.2000. There can be no doubt that the death took place during the period of the policy. Whether it was an accidental death in terms of the policy need not detain the Court in view of the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer in his supplementary counter affidavit has acknowledged the eligibility for payment to the petitioner for the death of the deceased during elections following the decision of this Court report in 2002 (3) PLJR 450 (Kamlabati Devi Versus State of Bihar & Others) with regard to the interpretation of the policy. The only question for adjudication that remains now is whether the Insurance Company shall pay the amount, and if the policy has lapsed, who shall bear the brunt of the compensation to be paid. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the claim was to be lodged within the duration of the policy i.e. 24.05.2000 to 23.6.2000. If the claim was not raised during the validity of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable as the policy has lapsed. He relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in 1998 (2) PLJR 692 (Smt. Lilawanti Devi Versus The State of Bihar & Others) holding at paragraphs- 6 and 7 as follows:- “6. So far as the petitioner’s claim for payment by the Insurance company is concerned, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits before this court that the policy covering 3 the date of personal accident has expired in the year 1994 itself and after expiry of the said policy, no direction can be given for such payment.” “7. This court is of view that it cannot direct the Insurance company to make payment after expiry of the policy.” It is submitted that it has been followed in C.W.J.C. No. 11451 of 2003. Once the insurance policy had been taken for persons deployed on poll duty and premium was paid by the State Officials to the Insurance Company, the primary responsibility to raise a claim under the policy lay with the officials of the State Government. If death occurred on poll duty during the validity of the policy, it was prima facie case for raising a claim. The objection, if any, was to be raised by the Insurance Company in context of the policy, if there be any objection sustainable. If the claim itself was not raised by the officials of the State Government within the duration of the policy and the policy has been allowed to lapse, the court finds it very difficult to take a view different from that of Smt. Lilawanti Devi (supra). If the deceased suffered a sun stroke and died, surely his widow in grief was not expected to make the rounds of the corridor of the Secretariat to persuade the State officials to perform what was otherwise their bounden administrative duty. Their lapses cannot visit 4 the petitioner with the consequences. It is for the State to sets its own house in order and to decipher due to whose fault despite having paid premium the State Government faces the double loss by way of premium and also having to pay compensation absolving the insurance company. In the case of Smt. Lilawanti Devi (supra), notwithstanding the expiry of the policy, excluding the liability of the Insurance Company, directions were given to the State Government to examine the claims and, if deprivation of the benefit of the insurance claim was a result of a lapses of the State Government, order for payment of the insurance amount was directed to be made. In the present case the stage of the enquiry is over, once respondent no.9, the Chief Electoral Officer in his supplementary counter affidavit has admitted liability. Let respondents 8 and 9 together ensure that the insurance amount as contained in the supplementary policy valid during the period 24.5.2000 to 23.6.2000 is paid to the petitioner for the death of her husband on poll duty within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before either respondent no. 8 or 9. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid directions. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)