TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was forwarded to the respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company, for the claim to be processed. No decision was being taken for processing the claim, as such, after representing the matter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ-C No. 558 of 2020 (Gautam Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 others), which was disposed off vide order dated 14.1.2020, directing the District Magistrate, Jaunpur to hear the grievances and take an appropriate decision after summoning the records within a period of two months. It is stated that the petitioner appeared and apprised about his eligibility for the claim, however, the same was rejected vide order dated Nil, March, 2020 (Annexure-9) solely on the ground that the petitioner did not prefer the claim within the limitation prescribed in the Scheme. 3. A perusal of the order passed and impugned in the present writ petition shows that the learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the father of the petitioner died on 3.7.2018, however, as the death certificate was not granted to the petitioner, the claim was filed as soon as the death certificate was granted on 20th October, 2018, thus, there was no delay in filing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....piry of date of insurance term and also beyond the condonable powers conferred upon the District Magistrate. The limitation prescribed as under: 10. On a plain reading of the said provision and the documents on record, it is clear that the petitioner had filed the application for grant of compensation on 20.10.2018 whereas the death had occurred on 3.7.2018. The period of insurance policy expired on 12.9.2018 as such claim could be made by 11.10.2018 with a further condonable limit upto 11.11.2018 as such it was well within the limitation and the condonable limit prescribed in the scheme, by which time the delay in filing could be condoned. The impugned order is clearly wrong on that count and thus liable to be set aside holding that the application for compensation filed was well within the prescribed condonable period of limitation as provided in the Scheme. 11. Now coming to the second question agitated that the limitation prescribed in the Scheme is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is relevant to mention the following aspects which led to the framing of the Scheme in question. 12. We are dealing with the said arguments as a large number of petitions are being filed which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as incorporated: "10. The Insurance Company shall perform the services shall perform the services and carry out its obligation under this Agreement with the diligence efficiency and economy in accordance with generally accepted professional standards and practices. The Insurance Company shall abide by all the provision/Acts/Rules etc prevalent in the country The Insurance Company shall conform to the standards laid down in the RFP in totality. 11. Applicable Law means the laws and any other instrument having the force of law in India as may be issued and in force from time to time This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Union of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh. 12 If, after the date of issuance of LOI, there is any change in the Applicable Laws of India with respect to taxes and duties, then the same shall be borne by the Insurance Company. 13. Arbitration............................" 16. As the scheme (which contains period of limitation), is also made part of Agreement, the limitation is said to be prescribed for raising a claim. 17. We are informed that from 4.3.2020, the Scheme has been further amende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the present case. Section 46 of the Insurance Act, 1938 provides as under: "46. Application of the law in force in India to policies issued in India.--The holder of a policy of insurance issued by an insurer in respect of insurance business transacted in [India] after the commencement of this Act shall have the right, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy or in any Agreement relating thereto, to receive payment in [India], of any sum secured thereby and to sue for any relief in respect of the policy in any Court of competent jurisdiction in 1 [India]; and if the suit is brought in [India] any question of law arising in connection with any such policy shall be determined according to the law in force in [India]: [Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a policy of marine insurance.]" 23. A plain reading of the mandate of Section 46 makes it clear that the statutory right as contained in Section 46 to sue for relief in respect of the policy in a Court and the questions of law in connection with any such policy are to be determined in accordance with the law in force in India. Thus, the term 'law in force' has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and others, MANU/SC/0316/2012 : (2012) 6 SCC 502, while considering the policy of Union of India known as 'FTCC Scheme" laid down the following with regard to the scope of interference in policy matters by the Court: "100. Certain tests, whether this Court should or not interfere in the policy decisions of the State, as stated in other judgments, can be summed up as: (I) If the policy fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. (II) The change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily on any ulterior intention. (III) The policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness, etc. (IV) If the policy is found to be against any statute or the Constitution or runs counter to the philosophy behind these provisions. (V) It is dehors the provisions of the Act or legislations. (VI) If the delegate has acted beyond its power of delegation. 101. Cases of this nature can be classified into two main classes: one class being the matters rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised on very limited grounds. Again, the scope of judicial review in such matters is a very limited one. One of the most important aspects in adjudicating such a matter is that the State policy should not be opposed to basic rule of law or the statutory law in force. This is what has been termed by the Courts as the philosophy of law, which must be adhered to by valid policy decisions." 29. Thus, in view of the law laid down, it is clear that any policy decision which is against any statute, or can be faulted on the ground of arbitrariness and unfairness and if the same is dehors the provisions of the acts or legislation can be interfered with by the Court. 30. In the light of the above dictum of Supreme Court, we have to see whether such a short period of limitation militates against the object of the Scheme and can be interfered with on it being unreasonable and opposed to basic rule of law and whether the period of limitation prescribed in the Scheme is clearly violative of 'law of the land' and thus is contrary to the provisions of 46 of the Insurance Act as well as contrary to the own Agreement of the State with the Insurance Companies. 31. It is no doubt true....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima Scheme' and the similar schemes which were in force prior thereto on behalf of beneficiaries of the Scheme. 37. As innumerable cases are filed seeking compensation under the schemes across the State, we direct that all the claims filed within a period of three years from the date of the death or within a period of three years from the date of rejection of claim, either partly or wholly by the Insurance Company, should be treated to be filed within limitation and should be processed on their merits. 38. As we have held that 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ÿà¥€ अरà¥à¤œà¤• / नामिनी / कानूनी वारिस (जैसा लागू हो ) दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ बीमा अवधि की समापà¥à¤¤à¤¿ के 01 माह पशà¥à¤šà¤¾à¤¤à¥ तक बीमा दावा संबंधित बीमा कमà¥à¤ªà¤¨à¥€ को पà¥à¤°à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤ करने में विलमà¥à¤¬ हो जाता है तो उकà¥à¤¤ परिसà¥à¤¥à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿ में 01 माह तक विलमà¥à¤¬ को कà¥à¤·à¤®à¤¾ करने का अधिकार जिलाधि....