Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15657 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4675 of 2023 Petitioner :- United India Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Manager Regional Office Lko Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Director General Institutional Finance,External Aided Projects,Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Maneesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Prakash Sharma,Priyam Mishra,Shambhunath Mishra,Supriya Tiwari,Umesh Chandra Tripathi Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Priyam Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondent. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Award dated 9.2.2023 whereby the amount of Rs.5 lacs has been awarded alongwith 7% per annum. The contention of the claimant before the Permanent Lok Adalat in its claim was that the petitioner was a married son of the deceased, his mother who had died in an accident. It was stated that she was the bread earner of the family and the petitioner was dependent on her. The claim filed by the petitioner was initially repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the petitioner was a married son and has his own family and thus was not entitled for any compensation under the Insurance Scheme. After exchange of pleadings, efforts for reconciliation were made by the Permanent Lok Adalat, however on its failure, the Award was passed. The issue nos.1 and 2 were with regard to the entitlement of the claimant on account of death of his mother. After considering the evidence, the permanent Lok Adalat held that the mother was the bread earner of the family and was the head of the family. It was also held that she was earning the amount which was below poverty line and was thus covered by the Scheme. After recording the said finding, the award in question was passed. The counsel for the petitioner while arguing the present petition, argued that the mother was not the head of the family and bread earner of the family. The second point argued is that the petitioner was the married son and had his own family and thus he could not fall within the definition of the 'dependent' as defined under the policy and the Memorandum of Understanding. Reliance is placed upon the judgement of this Court dated 9.5.2019 in M.B.No.13240 of 2019 : Ram Pyari Vs. State of U.P. In the light of the said judgement, it is argued that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned award be set aside. It is also argued that the petitioner Company was entitled to repudiate the claim on valid ground and as such the award of interest is unjustified. Learned counsel for the private respondent on the other hand, argued that the mother of the petitioner was the owner of the ancestral property and after her death, the name of the claimant was mutated. Considering the land holdings in her favour and there has been no other person in the said family, the Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly held that the mother was the bread earner and the head of the family and in the absence of any evidence to prove otherwise, the Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly held that the mother was the bread earner. It is further argued that the definition of 'family', as contained in Memorandum of Understanding includes 'dependent son', it does not specify or restricts the claim of the 'dependent son' to be co related with the marriage or otherwise. He thus argued that the petition is bound to be dismissed and should be dismissed accordingly. Considering the definition of 'family' as contained in Memorandum of Understanding, the same includes 'dependent son'. The said definition cannot be restricted only to 'unmarried son' as is proposed to be argued. In view thereof, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner merits rejection. This Court in exercise of its power, cannot give a restrictive meaning in a definition which has a socio beneficial flavour. As regards the submission that the mother was not the head of the family, the same also deserves rejection as the mother was the sole owner of the agricultural holding of the family as has been discussed by the Permanent Lok Adalat as such the second contention also cannot be accepted. As regards the grant of interest, the interest is a normal accreditation of capital as such I do not see any reason to interfere with the award on all counts. The amount shall be deposited before the Permanent Lok Adalat to be paid to the claimant, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks. The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Order date : 17.3.2025. Shukla. Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench