S PREMALATHA Vs. MYSORE MINERALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner's husband was employed by the 1st respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as the 'company'). The company had entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent-life insurance corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation'), two sets of agreements were entered into between the company and the corporation. One in relation to the superannuation scheme and another group insurance scheme. The petitioner's husband .died on 21-10-1989. The petitioner applied for payment of the benefits arising out of the two schemes. The company paid the amount due under the superannuation scheme to the petitioner, while the corporation denied payment in regard to benefits arising under the group insurance scheme. Hence this petition.

(2.) the corporation has filed statement of objections stating that the company had to pay the premium as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the group insurance master policy and the premium had not been paid in due time i.e., 1st july, 1989 as required under the policy, but paid subsequently on 27-10-1989. Therefore, premium having been received on that day, the said scheme was allowed to be applicable with effect from 27-10-1989. It is contended that the corporation did not accept the premium in respect of petitioner's husband but only a proportionate premium from 27-10-1989 to 30-6-1990 and the excess premium paid was refunded to the company on 20-3-1990. The corporation having accepted the premium only in respect of persons living on 27-101989 and no premium having been accepted in respect of an employee for the period prior to 27-10-1989, there is no risk covered so far as the petitioner's husband is concerned and the persons who were living on 27-10-1989 alone were covered under the group insurance master policy and not the petitioner's husband who died on 21-10-1989 and therefore, it is contended that the corporation is not liable to make good the payment sought for by the petitioner. It is urged before me that no relief could be granted to the petitioner in this petition in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Life insurance corporation of India and others v Smt. Kiran Sinha, AIR 1985 SC 1265. It is urged by thelearned counsel for the corporation that the policy itself having been repudiated for a particular period viz., 1-7-1989 to 27-10-1989 and during that period the petitioner's husband having died, there is no policy alive at all and consequently, there is no obligation on the corporation to make payment. In view of this dispute raised by the corporation, it is contended, this court cannot grant any reliefs and it would be appropriate to relegate the parlies, if at all, to seek reliefs before a civil court. It is also urged that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the corporation and on that ground also, the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs. The contract being only between the company and the corporation, though for the benefit of its employees, does not entitle the petitioner to make any claim and consequently, it is submitted that no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

(3.) so far as the contention urged by the learned counsel by placing reliance on kiran sinha 's case, I am afraid, the said decision does not set out any principle. All that is noticed in that decision is, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the court ought not to have directed payment of money claimed under the insurance policy in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the only remedy available to the claimant therein was by way of a civil suit. It is no doubt true that this court normally docs not entertain cases where parties can obtain reliefs at the hands of the civil court and particularly when there is a disputed question of fact and which needs investigation, the parties are relegated to avail of those remedies. But it is not a rigid Rule that this court cannot grant any relief where relief can also be obtained by way of a suit. If there is no disputed question of fact, but only application of law arises in a case, this court can certainly examine the matter and give relief. In this case, what falls for consideration is only interpretation and application of the terms of master policy and there is no dispute on any question of fact hence, I do not think the corporation can rely upon the decision in kiran sinha's case to contend that no relief should be granted to the petitioner and consequently, that contention is rejected.