Uttarakhand High Court
The New India Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Amita Tamta And Another on 26 November, 2018
Author: Lok Pal Singh
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, Lok Pal Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 937 of 2018
The New India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Amita Tamta and another ...Respondents
Present:
Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. B.M. Pingal, Counsel for respondent no.1.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Counsel for respondent no.2
Dated: 26th November, 2018
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J.
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) The delay of 42 days in preferring the appeal is not opposed and is therefore condoned. Application (CLMA No.17561 of 2018) is, accordingly, allowed.
2. This appeal, under Chapter-VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, as adopted by the Uttarakhand High Court, is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No.945 of 2011 on 20.8.2018. The second respondent in the writ petition is in appeal against the said order.
3. The first respondent herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State Election Commission, and the New India Insurance Company Limited, to release the insured amount, along with 9% annual interest, in favour of the petitioner as per the order passed by the State Election Commission on 20.8.2008; and issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.4.2010 passed by the New India Insurance Company Limited.
4. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the first respondent-writ petitioner's husband, late Sri Daya Sagar Tamta, was posted as a Constable at Udham Singh Nagar on election duty. During the first phase of the three-tier Panchayat elections of 2008, the 2 petitioner's husband died on 2.9.2008. The Sub-District Election Officer (Panchayat), vide proceedings dated 26.8.2009, lodged a claim with the appellant herein claiming death insurance in respect of the first respondent-writ petitioner's husband. The writ petitioner also submitted a representation on 5.3.2010. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar also addressed a letter on 16.4.2010 to the appellant-insurance company to release the insured amount. The appellant, however, rejected the claim of the first respondent-writ petitioner holding that the death of her husband due to illness did not amount to an accident, which alone was covered under the insurance policy. Thereafter the Sub-District Election Officer, vide letter dated 27.4.2010, clarified the matter to the appellant-insurance company. An F.I.R. was also lodged on the ground that the petitioner's husband died during election duty. The petitioner, thereafter, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.
5. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge noted that, while the first respondent-writ petitioner's husband was posted as a Constable in Udham Singh Nagar, he fell sick; and he was initially admitted at Nanakmatta, and thereafter in Sushila Tiwari Hospital where he died on 2.9.2008. The learned Single Judge observed that the State Election Commission had submitted a proposal to the appellant- insurance company to issue a Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy, in favour of the State Election Commissioner, to cover the risk of police personnel and other persons who were engaged in Panchayat Election Duty from 26.8.2008 to 2.9.2008; the Sub-District Election Officer (Panchayat) had sent a communication to the appellant-insurance company on 26.8.2009 claiming insurance qua the petitioner's husband; the petitioner had also submitted a representation on 5.3.2010 followed by several communications by police officials; and the appellant- insurance company had, by their letter dated 27.4.2010, rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that her husband died due to Hepatitis failure.
6. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, noted the clarifications issued by the officials concerned that the death of petitioner's husband 3 was due to cardio respiratory failure, and not because of Hepatitis, and observed that the insurance company had placed reliance on the word 'accident'; the word 'accident' had to be given a liberal meaning, and it also included sudden death due to cardio respiratory failure; it was not necessary that the dependent of the employee, deputed to election duty, could claim insurance amount under the insurance policy only if the employee met with an accident; the election duty was an arduous job; the Court could take judicial notice of the fact that violence takes place during elections; the police personnel, and any other employee put under election duty, are under tremendous stress and pressure; when the petitioner's husband left for duty, he was hale and hearty; he complained of illness only when he was deputed to duty, and had left the police station; though he was admitted as a case of Hepatitis failure, he had, in fact, died due to cardio respiratory failure; and the petitioner' case would, therefore, be covered under the insurance policy in terms of the insurance agreement entered into between the State and the Insurance Company on 20.8.2008. The order of the insurance company dated 27.10.2010 was quashed, and they were directed to pay a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the petitioner with interest at 9% per annum within ten weeks from the date of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
7. Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company, would draw our attention to the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy taken out by the State Election Commission which, in the definition clause, defines an 'accident' to mean "an accident is a sudden, unforeseen and involuntary event caused by external, visible and violent means."
8. While a case of Hepatitis failure or cardio-respiratory failure cannot be said to be a sudden unforeseen and involuntary event, even if we were to proceed on the premise that, it is so, the word "accident" is defined in the Insurance Policy itself as such an event caused by external, visible and violent means. The petitioner's husband's illness (either of Hepatitis or of cardio respiratory failure) cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be an event caused by external, visible and violent means. It is evident, therefore, that the petitioner's husband's 4 death is not covered by the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy taken out, by the State Election Commission, with the appellant- insurance company.
9. While Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned Counsel for the respondent- writ petitioner, would submit that a sympathetic view should be taken, and an enlarged meaning should be given, to the definition of the word 'accident' in the insurance policy, to bring within its ambit even death caused because of stress and strain on election duty, the fact remains that the obligation of the appellant to pay compensation is strictly in terms of the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy taken out by the State Election Commission. While nothing prevented the State Election Commission from taking out a Group Personal Insurance Policy to include death caused because of illness, or on account of stress and strain due to election duty, the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy was taken out only to cover accidents, and nothing more. The appellant can be mulcted with liability only if the case of the respondent-writ petitioner falls within the ambit of the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy.
10. As we are satisfied that the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy covers only accident, which is also a defined expression in the Policy itself, it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court, in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to expand the definition of "accident", or to give it an unnatural meaning to include death on account of illness. We are satisfied, therefore, that the learned Single Judge has erred in granting the respondent-writ petitioner, the relief sought for in the writ petition.
11. The order under appeal is set aside and the special appeal is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.
(Lok Pal Singh, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.)
26.11.2018 26.11.2018
Sukhbant