2020 (11) TMI 1106 - HC - Indian Laws

Court extends time limit under Kisan Bima Scheme, directs claim processing, urges Scheme amendment

Gautam Yadav Versus  State of U.P. and Ors.

The court allowed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the claim under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima Scheme as time-barred. It held ... Rejection of claim of the petitioner under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima on the ground that the claim is time barred - delay in providing the death certificate - HELD THAT:- The State Government intending to extend insurance cover to the marginalised farmers in the State floated e-tenders calling upon the Insurance Companies to participate and bid for the implementation of the 'Samajwadi Kisan and Sarvahit Bima Yojna' in Uttar Pradesh which was subsequently renamed as 'Mukhayamantri Kisan and Sarvahit Bima Yojna' in Uttar Pradesh vide Government Order No. 511b(1)/ka-Ni-6-2017-208(4)/2015 dated 20.6.2017. In terms of the said tender, various insurance companies participated and with the highest bidder an Agreement was entered into in between the Insurance Companies and the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Governor. Whether the prescription of limitation in the Scheme is 'unreasonable' and 'arbitrary' and upto what extent this Court can interfere with the Scheme especially with regard to limitation? - HELD THAT:- The Scheme was formulated by the State as a Welfare State and the insurance premium is paid by the State to the Insurance Company, who in turn issue the policies. Thus, it is clearly an insurance contract wherein the policy is issued by the Insurance Company and the premium is paid by the State in discharging its obligation as a welfare State. The Scheme is clearly a 'socio-beneficial scheme' for the benefit of marginalised sections of the society. Insurance by its very nature is a contingent contract and the benefits of the insurance policy depend on the contingencies as indicated in the policy. Insurance in India is governed under the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 which authorizes and regulates the business of insurance in India. Essentially, the breach of terms of insurance policy is a 'tortuous liability' and but for any specific statutory enactment, (like M.V. Act, Employees Compensation Act, etc) gives a cause of action for filing a suit, in the event of breach of condition of policy - The Schedule appended to the 'Limitation Act' governs the period of limitation for filing a suit on account of breach of an insurance policy and Article 44(a) of the said Schedule provides for a period of three years' limitation for filing a suit from the date of the death of the deceased, or from the date when the claim is partly or wholly denied. It is well-settled that the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to the suits, appeals and the applications as enumerated and before the Courts only. The prescription of limitation in Scheme of the nature which is under consideration by this Court has to be interpreted in a manner so as to achieve the object for which the Scheme is made and any prescription or provision/s which is/are for contrary to the statutory provisions has to be repelled more so in view of specific mandate of Section 46 of the Insurance Act as well as the specific Agreement in between the Insurance Companies and the State agreeing to the applicability of the laws as prevalent in India. It is no doubt true that the Limitation Act is not applicable in proceedings other than the suits and appeals and the proceedings before the Court, however, the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act clearly lays down the period within which a suit can be instituted in the event of non-payment of compensation. Thus, the limitation prescribed under the Scheme is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary and is liable to be struck out as it is well-settled that even while testing the validity of an administrative action, the same can be tested on the touch stone of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A 'socio-beneficial' Scheme has to be interpreted in a manner so as to advance the purpose for which the Scheme is formulated and not in a manner so as to defeat the entire purpose of the Scheme - the order dated Nil March, 2020 (Annexure-9) is set aside, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of limitation on both grounds as raised and discussed in this Judgment. The limitation provided under the said Scheme is unreasonable and arbitrary and have substituted the said period by a period of three years, as recorded above, we direct the Registrar General of this Court to transmit a copy of this order to The Chief Secretary State of Uttar Pradesh and Director Institutional Finance, State of Uttar Pradesh, for its communication to all the District Magistrates in the State and the District Magistrates in turn are directed to entertain and process the claims filed under the Scheme within limitation as prescribed above by this Court treating them to be within limitation and the same should be processed on their merits - It is directed and provided for the limitation of three years, till the time the State Government takes an appropriate decision and amends limitation clauses of the Scheme to make them more reasonable taking into account the socio economic condition of the society as well the laws of India. Petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Rejection of the claim under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima Scheme on the grounds of being time-barred.2. Validity and reasonableness of the limitation period prescribed under the Scheme.3. Applicability of the Limitation Act to the Scheme.4. Judicial review of policy decisions and administrative actions.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of the Claim Under the Scheme as Time-Barred:The petitioner challenged the District Magistrate, Jaunpur's order rejecting his claim under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima Scheme on the grounds that it was time-barred. The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the claim was due to the late issuance of the death certificate, which was a necessary document for the claim. The District Magistrate found that the claim was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and outside the condonable limit, thus rejecting it.2. Validity and Reasonableness of the Limitation Period:The petitioner contended that the limitation period prescribed under the Scheme was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court noted that the Scheme was formulated to benefit marginalized farmers and that the insurance premium was paid by the State. The court held that the limitation period prescribed in the Scheme was indeed arbitrary and had the potential to frustrate the Scheme's purpose. The court emphasized that the Scheme, being socio-beneficial, should be interpreted in a manner that advances its purpose.3. Applicability of the Limitation Act:The court referred to Section 46 of the Insurance Act, 1938, which mandates that policies issued in India must comply with the laws in force in India. The court also noted that the Limitation Act provides a three-year period for filing a suit on account of breach of an insurance policy. The court held that this three-year period should be considered reasonable for filing claims under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima Scheme, as it aligns with the broader legal framework governing insurance contracts.4. Judicial Review of Policy Decisions:The court cited the Supreme Court's guidelines on judicial review of policy decisions, emphasizing that policies can be challenged on grounds of unreasonableness, arbitrariness, and violation of statutory provisions. The court found that the short limitation period prescribed in the Scheme was unreasonable and arbitrary, thus warranting judicial intervention. The court held that the limitation period should be extended to three years from the date of death or rejection of the claim, in line with the Limitation Act.Conclusion:The court set aside the District Magistrate's order rejecting the petitioner's claim on the grounds of limitation. It directed that claims under the Scheme should be considered within a three-year period from the date of death or rejection, treating them as within limitation. The court also directed the Registrar General to communicate this order to relevant state authorities for implementation. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur, was instructed to process the petitioner's claim on its merits within three months.Final Judgment:The writ petition was allowed, and the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, was directed to process the claim in accordance with the court's findings on the limitation period. The court emphasized the need for the State Government to amend the Scheme's limitation clauses to make them more reasonable, considering the socio-economic conditions and the laws of India.