V.M.Sahai, R.N.Misra - (1.) -By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed amount of insurance alongwith interest.
(2.) WE have heard Sri Kamal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Nikhil Kumar for respondent No. 4. The petitioner's husband Darshan Yadav was a small farmer and sole earning member of the family. His age was about 55 years. On 27.9.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. when he was irrigating his agricultural field was murdered. The F.I.R. Annexure-3 to the writ petition was lodged at the police station. According to G.O. No. 1751/1.9.2004-962 LC/2004 dated 20.8.2004, the General Insurance Scheme was launched by the U. P. Government for small farmers, whose age was more than 12 years and not more than 70 years. The scheme was effected from 5 p.m. of 16.9.2004 to 4.59 p.m. of 16.9.2004. Some clarification was also given through G.O. No. 2032/1.9.2004-962 LC/2004 dated 5.10.2004. Copy is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In view of said G.O., petitioner, the wife of deceased Darshan Yadav filed claim for insurance amount of Rs. 1 lac only on 6.10.2004 before District Magistrate, Mau through Lekhpal concerned. It appears that some delay was caused in processing her application from the office of District Magistrate, Mau and the application was forwarded to the insurance company, the respondent No. 4 a bit late and on the same ground, the respondent No. 4 rejected the claim of petitioner hence this petition. The copy of rejection order is Annexure C.A.-2 with the affidavit dated 4.2.2007 filed by Sri Pratyush Kumar, Manager (Legal) of respondent No. 4. This order shows that merely on the ground of limitation, claim of petitioner was rejected. The authorities concerned did not examine merit of the case. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has also taken same plea of limitation in the counter affidavit justifying rejection of claim of petitioner. He has also taken an alternative plea that the writ petition is not maintainable and altrnative remedy of the petitioner lies in filing a complaint before District Consumer Forum or civil suit before civil court concerned.
(3.) ANNEXURE-1 is the photo copy of extract of khatauni 1410-1415 fasli which shows that the deceased was a small farmer. ANNEXURE-2 is the copy of kutumb register of village Bhela Bandh, Tehsil Sadar, district Mau, which shows that the deceased was born in 1950. Thus, at the time of death, his age was much less than 70 years. ANNEXURE-5 is the copy of application moved by the petitioner to District Magistrate, Mau dated 6.10.2004 putting her claim for insurance amount of Rs. 1 lac only vide G.O. referred to earlier. These facts show that the deceased was very well covered under the insurance scheme and the application was moved well within time by the petitioner completing all formalities. No doubt claim of the petitioner was forwarded by District Magistrate after 142 days of its presentation but there was no fault on the part of petitioner. This fact has not been controverted by the respondents as alleged by the petitioner that she had filed his claim on 6.10.2004 before District Magistrate, Mau claiming insurance amount of her husband who was murdered on 27.9.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. The scheme of insurance was effective since 16.9.2004. Thus, it is clear that within ten days, the petitioner moved application to the District Magistrate concerned claiming insurance amount, whereas according to G.O. dated 20.8.2004 referred to earlier, she was expected to file her application within 15 days. Thus, her application was well within time. If any delay was caused by district authorities in forwarding her application to the insurance company, she was not at fault. The scheme for general insurance of small farmers was launched by the U. P. Government for the welfare of poor people. This was public welfare scheme, therefore, claim of victim who was aggrieved person could not be thrown out merely on the ground of laches on the part of Government officials. The insurance company has to pay claim of petitioner who comes within the ambit of insurance plan. If there was any delay on the part of Government officials, in the worst case, the insurance company could claim refund of money from the Government particularly from the Government officials, who were responsible for delay.;