ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Jagannath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the State of U.P. launched a scheme of general insurance known as 'Janta Personal Accident Policy' for all the farmers of State, who were recorded as owner of land in Khatauni. The scheme was applicable in the cases of accident causing death or physical loss to the farmers whose age was between 12 years to 70 years. An agreement was executed on 16th September, 2006 between Governor of the State through Principal Secretary (Revenue), Government of U.P. referred to in the agreement as "the Government" and the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company referred to in the agreement as "ICICI Lombard". The State Government floated a tender for insurance of the farmers of the Uttar Pradesh aged between 12 years to 70 years, whose names appeared in the Khatauni of the State as owner of the agricultural land, for Rs.1,00,0007- under the "Janta Personal Accident Policy". The ICICI Lombard submitted the offer which was accepted by the Government vide order dated 16th September, 2006 on which date agreement was also entered. A policy bond was also issued by the ICICI Lombard copy of which has been filed as Annexure SCA-2 to the supplementary counter affidavit. The period of insurance according to the policy bond was from 17 hours of 16th September, 2006 to 16.59 hours of 16th September, 2007. The State Government also issued a Government order dated 30m October, 2006 copy of which has been filed asAnnexure-1 to the writ petition with regard to operation of "Janta Vyakatigat Durghatana Beema Yojana". The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that his father namely, Gulab Chandra, who was a tenure holder, met with an accident on 2nd January, 2006 and due to injuries received in the stomach, the petitioner's father died on 22nd October, 2006. Petitioner's case further is that after the death of his father information was given by the petitioner to the Lekhpal within a week along with the relevant documents, who after completing the claim submitted the same to the Sub Divisional Officer, Handia through Tahsildar, Handia recommending payment of rupees one lac. Letter dated 20th December, 2006 was sent to the respondent No. 4 on behalf of the District Magistrate referring to the Government order dated 161" September, 2006. The respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 28th December, 2006 to the District Magistrate, Allahabad informing that the claim has been reviewed and it has been decided that since accident occurred on 2nd January, 2006 and policy started from 16th September, 2006, the claim is not covered. The Chief Revenue Officer informed the Sub Divisional Officer vide letter dated 25th January, 2007 regarding the letter of respondent No. 4 dated 28th December, 2006. The Tahsildar after receiving the letter of the Chief Revenue Officer again wrote to the Chief Revenue Officer that since the death of Gulab Chandra occurred on 22nd October, 2006 and the policy has been enforced from 16th September, 2006, the application is again being forwarded. The District Magistrate vide letter dated 26th February, 2007 again forwarded the application to respondent No. 4 for payment under the "Kisan Durghatana Beema Policy" stating that the accident took place on 2nd January, 2006 in which deceased had received injuries and while receiving treatment father of the petitioner died on 22nd October, 2006. It was further stated that date of death being covered by the policy, the claim is re-submitted. A reminder was written again by the District Magistrate on 24th March, 2007 to respondent No. 4. A letter was written by ICICI Lombard on 2nd April, 2007 informing that claim cannot be admitted since intimation was given late. The District Magistrate again wrote on 24th April, 2007 stating that claim was firstly submitted on 20th December, 2006 that was within 90 days and the objection that it was submitted after 90 days is incorrect. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation to the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai on 18th June, 2007. The representation submitted on behalf of the petitioner was replied on 29th June, 2007 informing that ICICI Lombard is not liable to pay the claim. Aggrieved against the rejection of the claim by the ICICI Lombard, the petitioner has come up in the writ petition.
(3.) A counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed by respondent No. 4. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that father of the petitioner, namely, Gulab Chandra, met with an accident on 2nd January, 2006 allegedly by falling from a tree. It is pleaded that at that time the policy was being run by New India Assurance Company Limited and the answering respondent issued the policy pnly with effect from 16th September, 2006 to 15th September, 2007. It is stated that merely because date of death was 22nd October, 2006, the answering respondent is not liable to pay any compensation insomuch as the relevant date for the purposes of entitlement under the policy would be the date of accident, which was 2nd January, 2006 The claim thus was rejected on 28th December, 2006 giving aforesaid reason. Again the claimant re-pursued the matter, which was turned down on 2nd April, 2007. Thereafter letter was again written by the District Magistrate, which was subsequently replied on 22nd June, 2007 refuting the claim. In the supplementary counter affidavit the respondents have brought on the record copy of the agreement between the Government and the ICICI Lombard dated 16th September, 2006 and one of the policies which was issued by the ICICI Lombard in the year 2004-05, namely "Panjikriti Krishak Durghatana Beema Yojana". Rejoinder affidavit has been filed in which the petitioner reiterated his claim. In the rejoinder affidavit reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2008(6) ADJ 141, Smt. Sharda Devi v. State of U.P. and another.;