THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS v. SMT. SUREKHA AND 4 OTHERS
WRIC/14296/2025 · 2025-05-19
Avnish Saxena, Saurabh Dwivedi Registrar J Cpc
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 52639 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 52639 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84439-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14296 of 2025 Petitioner :- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited And 2 Others Respondent :- Smt. Surekha And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjeev Kumar Saxena Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. (Per Hon’ble Arindam Sinha, J.) Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (the Insurance Company). He submits, impugned is inter alia order dated 19th February, 2025 made by the District Review Committee through the District Magistrate (DRC) recommending payment of the claim made by respondent no.1. The deceased died by accident on 7th September, 2017. The incident came within duration of ‘Group Personal Accident tailor made Policy Schedule’ expiring on mid-night of 13th September,
2017. Drawing attention to policy clause 22 he points out, a claim had to be made not later than one month from end of insurance period. The claim was made on 19th January, 2018, beyond the time. As such the claim stood extinguished on the sunset period having come to an end on the policy expiring as on mid-night of 13th September, 2017. He submits, impugned order be set aside and quashed. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Saxena, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 1, mother whose son died in the accident. He refers to said clause in the policy and submits, the claim could be made within extendable time of four months from date of accident. The accident happened on 7th September, 2017 and the
claim was made by application on 4th January, 2018. Hence, the DRC was correct in recommending the claim for payment. He submits, the writ petition be dismissed. Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned advocate Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and submits, all parties were heard and a good order passed by the DRC. No interference is warranted. Sub-clause (c) under clause 22 in the policy is reproduced below:
"22. The Insurance Company shall wholly indemnify Directorate and GoUP from and against any costs, loss, damages, expenses, claims including those from third parties or liabilities of any kind howsoever suffered, arising or incurred inter alia during and after this Agreement period. a)........... b)........... c) The claims are to be made within three months (but not later than one month of end of insurance period).
In case, the claims are not made within the above time frame, then District Magistrate shall have the rights to excuse the delay for claim submission for additional one month. d)..........." Petitioner relies on contingency of the policy having ended. Therefore, the accident having taken place before the policy expired, the claim had to be made within one month from its expiry i.e. by 12th October, 2017. On the other hand respondent no. 1 says extendable time is four months. On query Mr. Shukla submits, new policy was taken by the government as on 14th September, 2017. On further query Mr. Shukla submits, the point was urged before the DRC. On perusal of impugned order we do see that parties were heard and the decision rendered by the Committee recommending
payment of the claim. We would not like to substitute our
reasoning for reasoning given in impugned order but we would like to observe, where a fresh policy was taken in tandem with expiry of the earlier one and clause 22 carried over on to the new policy, the extended time of four months clause would come into play. The contingency of claim to be made not later than one month from end of the insurance period must mean relationship of insurer and insured coming to an end. Otherwise, sub-clause (c) under clause 22 would have different interpretation for a claim arising prior to three months before end of the annual period and a claim arising within one month of expiry of the particular period. We do not find any perversity in impugned order. There is no reason to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.5.2025 NSC (Arindam Sinha, J.) (Avnish Saxena, J.) Digitally signed by :- NARENDRA SINGH CHAUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad