Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Group Insurance Policy in Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs Mrs. Annie Thomas & Ors. on 28 August, 2024Matching Fragments
7. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the husband of Respondent No.1 had joined the service of the Appellant-company on a contractual basis Signing Date:30.08.2024 19:51:13 in 2010 when the un-named group insurance policy for heavy risk was in existence. Thus the Respondent No.1 had a legitimate expectation that in the event of her husband passing away in an aviation accident, she would receive the enhanced compensation under the un-named group heavy risk insurance policy.
8. Though the husband of Respondent No.2 had joined the service of the Appellant-company on contractual basis on 29th April, 2008, yet he had written a letter dated 03rd September, 2009 along with other pilots suggesting that the insurance policy be enhanced for those involved in anti- Naxal operations. Since the un-named group heavy risk insurance policy was obtained immediately thereafter, the Respondent No.2 also had a legitimate expectation that in the event of her husband passing away in an aviation accident, she would receive the enhanced compensation. In furtherance, as noted by the learned Single Judge, the Appellant-company in its office note dated 29th October, 2009 had also noted that the second insurance policy is "over and above the existing PA/GPA policies."
9. It is pertinent to mention that the heavy risk un-named group insurance policy was initially valid between 03rd September, 2009 to 03rd September, 2010 and renewed from 04th September, 2010 to 03rd September, 2011. Thereafter, the Appellant-company had requested the Respondent No.4 for its renewal, but due to certain issues flagged by the insurance company, there was no insurance cover available between 04th September, 2011 and 20th June, 2012.
Signing Date:30.08.2024 19:51:13
14. This Court is further of the view that if the heavy risk un-named group insurance policy was to be a substitute policy for those working in the Naxal-infested area, there would be no question of the Appellant paying the Respondent-wives under the normal risk policy, as has been done in the present case.