SWARAN KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KARAM Singh who was employed as a driver by respondent No. 2 the Indian Road Constructions Corporation, Limited with Headquarter at New Delhi, died on August 16,1985 in an accident suffered by him in Libya on August 10, 1985 in the course of his duties. The present writ petition has been filed by his widow Swaran Kaur praying that the respondents be directed to settle the claim for compensation which was to be paid on account of the death of her husband. It is the admitted case before me that respondent No. 2 is a wholly Central Government owned Company and is therefore being an instrumentality of the State is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) A reply has been filed, through post on behalf of respondent No. 2 in which the liability to pay has been obliquely admitted but an effort has been made to palm of the Liability to respondent No. 4, the Insurance Company. Respondent No. 4 in its reply while denying the territorial jurisdiction of this Court has stated that the policy of Insurance Annexure R-l was not in existence on the day the accident took place and in any case the policy being in the nature of a group insurance scheme signed between respondents 2 and 4, disentitled the petitioner from claiming anything directly from the Insurance Company. It has been urged by Mr. Suri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, that respondent No. 2 was bound to make the payment to the petitioner, and thereafter recover the amount from it, should the matter be covered by the policy of insurance. In the course of the motion hearing of this petition, a direction was issued to the respondents to settle the claim of the petitioner but it appears that nothing has been done so far. The case in hand is one of the kind where due to no fault of the petitioner, she has not been able to get any relief on account of the death of her husband who was employed with respondent No. 2 which is undoubtedly an instrumentality of the State. As a matter of fact, the efforts of the respondents No. 2 and 4 are to stall the payment of compensation by resorting to technicalities. I am of the view that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fate of helpless widow, this Court sitting on the writ side, would be fully justified in brushing aside the objections with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is significant that in para No. 13 of the written statement of respondent No. 2, it has been clearly stated that a compensation claim of Rs. 1 lakh has been submitted to respondent No. 4 as far back as on 19:3 1986. It is, therefore, apparent that the claim to the extent of Rs. 1 Lakh has infact been admitted by the employers. The present petition is therefore allowed and a direction is issued to respondent No. 2 to make the payment of Rs. 1 Lakh to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from today along-with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 15. 8. 1985 to the date of actual payment. Respondent No. 2 may thereafter if so advised recover the amount paid from respondent No. 4. As respondent No. 2 is not represented before me by a counsel, a certified copy of this order is directed to be served on its through registered post. The costs of the petition are assessed at Rs. 10,000/- which will be paid by respondent No. 2.