SUKHBIR KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is widow of late Pardaman Singh, has filed the present petition impugning the communication dated 16.05.2006 (Annexure P-5), vide which the claim of the petitioner under the "Chaudhary Devi Lal Jan Suraksha Bima Yojna" (Devi Rakshak) Scheme, 2003-04 (for short "the Scheme") as notified by Government of Haryana on 29.04.2004 has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a road accident, the husband of the petitioner, who was 26 years of age at that time, died on 27.09.2004. As per the Scheme notified by the Government of Haryana, the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 1 lac as compensation. The application for the purpose was filed and the same was forwarded by the competent authority in the State to the National Insurance Company Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company"). However, the same has been rejected vide impugned communication dated 16.05.2006, stating the reason that the deceased-husband of the petitioner was not head of the family. While referring to the terms of the Scheme, learned counsel submitted that ClauseB thereof defined insured beneficiary. The Scheme extended to all citizens of the Haryana in the age group of 18 to 80 years. All the bread earners of the families were covered excluding the Government employees and the income tax payees. The deceased after marriage with the petitioner was the bread earner for the family, hence, was entitled to get the compensation. Only in the clause providing for the amount of compensation, the word 'Head of the family' has been mentioned. Clause-I of the Scheme provided that in case the deceased was married, the compensation was to be paid to the widow, widower, dependent children, dependent parents, brothers and sisters or close relatives. It also provided for payment of compensation to the persons, who were entitled to that in case the deceased was not married. As the deceased-husband of the petitioner in the case in hand was the bread earner of the family, the rejection of the claim on the ground that he was not head of the family deserves to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State submitted that after receipt of the application for compensation from the petitioner, the claim was examined and forwarded to the Insurance Company for payment, finding the petitioner to be eligible to get the benefit.